Treatment outcome, cognitive function, and psychopathology in methamphetamine users compared to other substance users

BACKGROUND: The rising number of people using methamphetamine leads to an increasing need for treatment options for this patient group. Evidence-based research on the efficacy of treatment programs for methamphetamine users is limited. Due to specific characteristics of methamphetamine users, the question arises whether established treatment methods for individuals using other substances can be effective for the treatment of methamphetamine dependence as well. We hypothesize that there are significant differences between the two groups that may affect the effectiveness of treatment and worsen the prognosis of treatment outcomes for methamphetamine users compared to consumers of other substances. AIM: To investigate potential differences in cognitive functioning and psychopathology between methamphetamine users and other substance users and possible correlations with treatment outcomes. METHODS: A total of 110 subjects were recruited for an observational, longitudinal study from a German inpatient addiction treatment center: 55 patients with methamphetamine dependence and 55 patients with dependence of other substances (“OS group”). Both groups were examined at beginning (baseline) and end of treatment (after 6 mo) with regard to treatment retention, craving, cognitive functioning, psychosocial resources, personality traits, depression, and other psychiatric symptoms. Instruments used were Raven’s IQ test, Mannheimer craving scale, cognitrone cognitive test battery, NEO personality factors inventory, Hamilton depression scale, Becks depression inventory, and a symptom checklist. The statistical methods used were χ(2)-test, t-test and multiple mixed ANOVAs. RESULTS: A total drop-out rate of 40% (methamphetamine-group: 36.4%; OS-group: 43.6%) was observed without significant differences between groups. At baseline, methamphetamine-group subjects significantly differed from OS-group individuals in terms of a lower intelligence quotient, fewer years of education, slower working speed, and decreased working accuracy, as well as less cannabinoid and cocaine use. Methamphetamine-group subjects further showed a significantly lower score of conscientiousness, depressive, and psychiatric symptoms than subjects from the OS-group. In both groups, a reduction of craving and depressive symptoms and an improvement of working speed and working accuracy was noted after treatment. CONCLUSION: There are differences between methamphetamine users and users of other drugs, but not with regard to the effectiveness of treatment in this inpatient setting. There are differences in cognitive function and psychopathology between methamphetamine and other drugs users. The existing treatment options seem to be an effective approach in treating methamphetamine dependence

Pharmacological Neuroenhancement in the field of economics. Poll results from an online survey

Introduction: The use of over-the-counter, prescription, and illicit drugs to increase attention, concentration or memory – often called (pharmacological) neuroenhancement – shows a broad range of prevalence rates among students. However, very little data is available on neuroenhancement among employed persons. The aim of this study was to provide first data on substance use for neuroenhancement among readers of the German Handelsblatt coming from the field of economics.Methods: Readers of the online edition of the Handelsblatt, a leading print and online medium for the field of economics, were invited to participate in a survey via a link on the journal homepage to complete a web-based questionnaire. Within the questionnaire, participants were asked for their gender, current age, current professional status, hours of work per week, prevalence rates of substance use for the purpose of neuroenhancement as well as for reasons of its use. Binary regression analyses with stepwise forward selection were used to predict the dependent variables use of illicit and prescription drugs for neuroenhancement (yes/no), use of over-the-counter drugs for neuroenhancement (yes/no), and use of any drug for neuroenhancement (yes/no).Results: A total of 1,021 participants completed the anonymous survey. Lifetime prevalence for the use of any drug for neuroenhancement was 88.0% and for the use of illicit and prescription drugs for neuroenhancement 19.0%. Reasons and situations that predicted neuroenhancement with illicit and prescription drugs were curiosity, to enhance mood, for a confident appearance, stress/pressure to perform, and deadline pressure.Discussion: The study shows that neuroenhancement with drugs is a widespread and frequent phenomenon among people belonging to the professional field of economics. Given in the literature that the use of drugs, especially prescription and illicit drugs, may be associated with side effects, the high epidemic of drug use for neuroenhancement also shown in the present paper underlines the new public health concern of neuroenhancement