大麻与合成大麻素受体激动剂(SCRAs)的临床效果比较:2013 年至 2020 年期间欧洲医院急性毒性病例的回顾性队列研究。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 TOXICOLOGY Clinical Toxicology Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-27 DOI:10.1080/15563650.2024.2346125
Mitchell L Waters, Paul I Dargan, Christopher Yates, Alison M Dines, Florian Eyer, Isabelle Giraudon, Fridtjof Heyerdahl, Knut Erik Hovda, Matthias E Liechti, Òscar Miró, Odd Martin Vallersnes, Kurt Anseeuw, Robertas Badaras, Marcin Bitel, Jeffrey Bonnici, Miran Brvar, Blazena Caganova, Feriyde Calýskan, Alessandro Ceschi, Karam Chamoun, Laurence Daveloose, Miguel Galicia, Birgit Gartner, Ketevan Gorozia, Damjan Grenc, Femke M J Gresnigt, Laura Hondebrink, Gesche Jürgens, Jutta Konstari, Soso Kutubidze, Gabija Laubner, Evangelia Liakoni, Viesturs Liguts, Cathelijne Lyphout, Roy McKenna, Bruno Mégarbane, Adrian Moughty, Gabriela Viorela Nitescu, Roberta Noseda, Niall O'Connor, Raido Paasma, Juan Ortega Perez, Marius Perminas, Per Sverre Persett, Kristiina Põld, Erik Puchon, Jordi Puiguriguer, Julia Radenkova-Saeva, Jan Rulisek, Caroline Samer, Yasmin Schmid, Irene Scholz, Roberts Stašinskis, Jonas Surkus, Irma Van den Hengel-Koot, Federico Vigorita, Severin Vogt, Wojciech Waldman, William Stephen Waring, Sergej Zacharov, Tobias Zellner, David M Wood
{"title":"大麻与合成大麻素受体激动剂(SCRAs)的临床效果比较:2013 年至 2020 年期间欧洲医院急性毒性病例的回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Mitchell L Waters, Paul I Dargan, Christopher Yates, Alison M Dines, Florian Eyer, Isabelle Giraudon, Fridtjof Heyerdahl, Knut Erik Hovda, Matthias E Liechti, Òscar Miró, Odd Martin Vallersnes, Kurt Anseeuw, Robertas Badaras, Marcin Bitel, Jeffrey Bonnici, Miran Brvar, Blazena Caganova, Feriyde Calýskan, Alessandro Ceschi, Karam Chamoun, Laurence Daveloose, Miguel Galicia, Birgit Gartner, Ketevan Gorozia, Damjan Grenc, Femke M J Gresnigt, Laura Hondebrink, Gesche Jürgens, Jutta Konstari, Soso Kutubidze, Gabija Laubner, Evangelia Liakoni, Viesturs Liguts, Cathelijne Lyphout, Roy McKenna, Bruno Mégarbane, Adrian Moughty, Gabriela Viorela Nitescu, Roberta Noseda, Niall O'Connor, Raido Paasma, Juan Ortega Perez, Marius Perminas, Per Sverre Persett, Kristiina Põld, Erik Puchon, Jordi Puiguriguer, Julia Radenkova-Saeva, Jan Rulisek, Caroline Samer, Yasmin Schmid, Irene Scholz, Roberts Stašinskis, Jonas Surkus, Irma Van den Hengel-Koot, Federico Vigorita, Severin Vogt, Wojciech Waldman, William Stephen Waring, Sergej Zacharov, Tobias Zellner, David M Wood","doi":"10.1080/15563650.2024.2346125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Cannabis is the most common recreational drug worldwide and synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists are currently the largest group of new psychoactive substances. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical features and outcomes of lone acute cannabis toxicity with lone acute synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist toxicity in a large series of presentations to European emergency departments between 2013-2020.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Self-reported drug exposure, clinical, and outcome data were extracted from the European Drug Emergencies Network Plus which is a surveillance network that records data on drug-related emergency department presentations to 36 centres in 24 European countries. Cannabis exposure was considered the control in all analyses. To compare the lone cannabis and lone synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist groups, univariate analysis using chi squared testing was used for categorical variables and non-parametric Mann-Whitney U- testing for continuous variables. Statistical significance was defined as a <i>P</i> value of <0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between 2013-2020 there were 54,314 drug related presentations of which 2,657 were lone cannabis exposures and 503 lone synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist exposures. Synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist presentations had statistically significantly higher rates of drowsiness, coma, agitation, seizures and bradycardia at the time of presentation. Cannabis presentations were significantly more likely to have palpitations, chest pain, hypertension, tachycardia, anxiety, vomiting and headache.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Emergency department presentations involving lone synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist exposures were more likely to have neuropsychiatric features and be admitted to a psychiatric ward, and lone cannabis exposures were more likely to have cardiovascular features. Previous studies have shown variability in the acute toxicity of synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists compared with cannabis but there is little comparative data available on lone exposures. There is limited direct comparison in the current literature between lone synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist and lone cannabis exposure, with only two previous poison centre series and two clinical series. Whilst this study is limited by self-report being used to identify the drug(s) involved in the presentations, previous studies have demonstrated that self-report is reliable in emergency department presentations with acute drug toxicity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study directly compares presentations with acute drug toxicity related to the lone use of cannabis or synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists. It supports previous findings of increased neuropsychiatric toxicity from synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists compared to cannabis and provides further data on cardiovascular toxicity in lone cannabis use.</p>","PeriodicalId":10430,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Toxicology","volume":" ","pages":"378-384"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical effects of cannabis compared to synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists (SCRAs): a retrospective cohort study of presentations with acute toxicity to European hospitals between 2013 and 2020.\",\"authors\":\"Mitchell L Waters, Paul I Dargan, Christopher Yates, Alison M Dines, Florian Eyer, Isabelle Giraudon, Fridtjof Heyerdahl, Knut Erik Hovda, Matthias E Liechti, Òscar Miró, Odd Martin Vallersnes, Kurt Anseeuw, Robertas Badaras, Marcin Bitel, Jeffrey Bonnici, Miran Brvar, Blazena Caganova, Feriyde Calýskan, Alessandro Ceschi, Karam Chamoun, Laurence Daveloose, Miguel Galicia, Birgit Gartner, Ketevan Gorozia, Damjan Grenc, Femke M J Gresnigt, Laura Hondebrink, Gesche Jürgens, Jutta Konstari, Soso Kutubidze, Gabija Laubner, Evangelia Liakoni, Viesturs Liguts, Cathelijne Lyphout, Roy McKenna, Bruno Mégarbane, Adrian Moughty, Gabriela Viorela Nitescu, Roberta Noseda, Niall O'Connor, Raido Paasma, Juan Ortega Perez, Marius Perminas, Per Sverre Persett, Kristiina Põld, Erik Puchon, Jordi Puiguriguer, Julia Radenkova-Saeva, Jan Rulisek, Caroline Samer, Yasmin Schmid, Irene Scholz, Roberts Stašinskis, Jonas Surkus, Irma Van den Hengel-Koot, Federico Vigorita, Severin Vogt, Wojciech Waldman, William Stephen Waring, Sergej Zacharov, Tobias Zellner, David M Wood\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15563650.2024.2346125\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Cannabis is the most common recreational drug worldwide and synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists are currently the largest group of new psychoactive substances. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical features and outcomes of lone acute cannabis toxicity with lone acute synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist toxicity in a large series of presentations to European emergency departments between 2013-2020.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Self-reported drug exposure, clinical, and outcome data were extracted from the European Drug Emergencies Network Plus which is a surveillance network that records data on drug-related emergency department presentations to 36 centres in 24 European countries. Cannabis exposure was considered the control in all analyses. To compare the lone cannabis and lone synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist groups, univariate analysis using chi squared testing was used for categorical variables and non-parametric Mann-Whitney U- testing for continuous variables. Statistical significance was defined as a <i>P</i> value of <0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between 2013-2020 there were 54,314 drug related presentations of which 2,657 were lone cannabis exposures and 503 lone synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist exposures. Synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist presentations had statistically significantly higher rates of drowsiness, coma, agitation, seizures and bradycardia at the time of presentation. Cannabis presentations were significantly more likely to have palpitations, chest pain, hypertension, tachycardia, anxiety, vomiting and headache.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Emergency department presentations involving lone synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist exposures were more likely to have neuropsychiatric features and be admitted to a psychiatric ward, and lone cannabis exposures were more likely to have cardiovascular features. Previous studies have shown variability in the acute toxicity of synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists compared with cannabis but there is little comparative data available on lone exposures. There is limited direct comparison in the current literature between lone synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist and lone cannabis exposure, with only two previous poison centre series and two clinical series. Whilst this study is limited by self-report being used to identify the drug(s) involved in the presentations, previous studies have demonstrated that self-report is reliable in emergency department presentations with acute drug toxicity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study directly compares presentations with acute drug toxicity related to the lone use of cannabis or synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists. It supports previous findings of increased neuropsychiatric toxicity from synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists compared to cannabis and provides further data on cardiovascular toxicity in lone cannabis use.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10430,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Toxicology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"378-384\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Toxicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15563650.2024.2346125\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"TOXICOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15563650.2024.2346125","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介大麻是全球最常见的娱乐性药物,而合成大麻素受体激动剂是目前最大的一类新型精神活性物质。本研究旨在比较 2013-2020 年间欧洲急诊科接诊的一系列大型病例中,单独急性大麻中毒与单独急性合成大麻素受体激动剂中毒的临床特征和结果:该网络是一个监控网络,记录了 24 个欧洲国家 36 个中心与毒品有关的急诊就诊数据。在所有分析中,大麻暴露被视为对照组。为比较单独大麻组和单独合成大麻素受体激动剂组,对分类变量采用卡方检验进行单变量分析,对连续变量采用非参数曼惠尼 U 检验。统计显著性定义为 P 值小于 0.05:2013-2020 年间,共有 54,314 例药物相关病例,其中 2,657 例为单独接触大麻,503 例为单独接触合成大麻素受体激动剂。据统计,合成大麻素受体激动剂患者在发病时出现嗜睡、昏迷、躁动、癫痫发作和心动过缓的比例明显更高。大麻患者出现心悸、胸痛、高血压、心动过速、焦虑、呕吐和头痛的几率明显更高:讨论:单独接触合成大麻素受体激动剂的急诊患者更有可能出现神经精神特征并被送入精神科病房,而单独接触大麻的患者更有可能出现心血管特征。以往的研究表明,与大麻相比,合成大麻素受体激动剂的急性毒性存在差异,但几乎没有关于单独接触大麻的比较数据。在目前的文献中,对单独接触合成大麻素受体激动剂和单独接触大麻进行直接比较的文献十分有限,此前只有两个毒物中心系列研究和两个临床系列研究。虽然这项研究受限于使用自我报告来确定病例中涉及的药物,但以往的研究表明,自我报告在急诊科急性药物中毒病例中是可靠的:本研究直接比较了与单独使用大麻或合成大麻素受体激动剂有关的急性药物中毒症状。它支持了之前关于合成大麻素受体激动剂的神经精神毒性高于大麻的研究结果,并提供了更多关于单独使用大麻的心血管毒性的数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Clinical effects of cannabis compared to synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists (SCRAs): a retrospective cohort study of presentations with acute toxicity to European hospitals between 2013 and 2020.

Introduction: Cannabis is the most common recreational drug worldwide and synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists are currently the largest group of new psychoactive substances. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical features and outcomes of lone acute cannabis toxicity with lone acute synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist toxicity in a large series of presentations to European emergency departments between 2013-2020.

Methods: Self-reported drug exposure, clinical, and outcome data were extracted from the European Drug Emergencies Network Plus which is a surveillance network that records data on drug-related emergency department presentations to 36 centres in 24 European countries. Cannabis exposure was considered the control in all analyses. To compare the lone cannabis and lone synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist groups, univariate analysis using chi squared testing was used for categorical variables and non-parametric Mann-Whitney U- testing for continuous variables. Statistical significance was defined as a P value of <0.05.

Results: Between 2013-2020 there were 54,314 drug related presentations of which 2,657 were lone cannabis exposures and 503 lone synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist exposures. Synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist presentations had statistically significantly higher rates of drowsiness, coma, agitation, seizures and bradycardia at the time of presentation. Cannabis presentations were significantly more likely to have palpitations, chest pain, hypertension, tachycardia, anxiety, vomiting and headache.

Discussion: Emergency department presentations involving lone synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist exposures were more likely to have neuropsychiatric features and be admitted to a psychiatric ward, and lone cannabis exposures were more likely to have cardiovascular features. Previous studies have shown variability in the acute toxicity of synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists compared with cannabis but there is little comparative data available on lone exposures. There is limited direct comparison in the current literature between lone synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist and lone cannabis exposure, with only two previous poison centre series and two clinical series. Whilst this study is limited by self-report being used to identify the drug(s) involved in the presentations, previous studies have demonstrated that self-report is reliable in emergency department presentations with acute drug toxicity.

Conclusion: This study directly compares presentations with acute drug toxicity related to the lone use of cannabis or synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists. It supports previous findings of increased neuropsychiatric toxicity from synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists compared to cannabis and provides further data on cardiovascular toxicity in lone cannabis use.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Toxicology
Clinical Toxicology 医学-毒理学
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
12.10%
发文量
148
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: clinical Toxicology publishes peer-reviewed scientific research and clinical advances in clinical toxicology. The journal reflects the professional concerns and best scientific judgment of its sponsors, the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, the European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists, the American Association of Poison Control Centers and the Asia Pacific Association of Medical Toxicology and, as such, is the leading international journal in the specialty.
期刊最新文献
Correction. Ethanol for the management of alcohol withdrawal syndrome: a systematic review. A 10-year retrospective review of exposures to volatile nitrites reported to the Victorian Poisons Information Centre. Response to West et al. "Identifying and quantifying exposures involving counterfeit opioid analgesic products". An outbreak of Galerina sulciceps-like (Galerina cf. sulciceps) mushroom poisoning.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1