Overview of Amphetamine-Type Stimulant Mortality Data – UK, 1997–2007Schifano F.a, b · Corkery J.a · Naidoo V.a · Oyefeso A.a · Ghodse H.a
aNational Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths (np-SAD); International Centre for Drug Policy, St George’s, University of London, London, and bSchool of Pharmacy, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Article / Publication Details
Background/Aims: Despite being amphetamine derivatives, MDMA and its analogues show a number of clinical pharmacological differences with respect to both amphetamine (AMP) and methylamphetamine (METH). We aimed here at reporting and analysing information relating to the socio-demographics and clinical circumstances of the AMP-type stimulant-related deaths for the whole of the UK. Methods: Data (1997–2007) were taken from the National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths (np-SAD) database, collecting information from UK coroners/procurators fiscal. To calculate rates of fatalities per 100,000 users, appropriate AMP/METH and ecstasy users’ numbers were taken from the 2001–2007 British Crime Survey. Results: Overall, 832 AMP/METH- and 605 ecstasy (mostly MDMA and methylenedioxyamphetamine/MDA)-related deaths were respectively identified. In comparison with AMP/METH victims, the ecstasy ones were more likely to be younger (28.3 vs. 32.7 years; p < 0.0001) and less likely to be known as drug users (PR = 1.9; CI 1.5–2.6). Ecstasy was more likely to be identified on its own than AMP/METH (p = 0.0192). Contributory factors were more frequently mentioned by coroners in the ‘AMP/METH-only’ (106 cases) group than in the ‘ecstasy-only’ (104 cases) one (p = 0.0043). Both poly- and monodrug AMP/METH fatalities per 100,000 16- to 59-year-old users were significantly more represented than ecstasy fatalities (respectively 17.87 ± 4.77 deaths vs. 10.89 ± 1.27; p = 0.000; 2.09 ± 0.88 vs. 1.75 ± 0.56; p = 0.0096). However, mono-intoxication ecstasy fatalities per 100,000 16- to 24-year-old users were significantly more represented than AMP/METH fatalities (1.67 ± 0.52 vs. 0.8 ± 0.65; p = 0.0007). Conclusion: With respect to AMP/METH, ecstasy was here more typically identified in victims who were young, healthy, and less likely to be known as drug users. AMP/METH high mortality rates may be explained by users’ high levels of physical co-morbidity; excess ecstasy-related fatality rates in young users may be a reason for concern. Although the coroners’ response rate was of 90–95%, study limitations include both reporting inconsistency over time and lack of routine information on drug intake levels prior to death.
© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.