6 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Screening for Adolescent Alcohol Use in the Emergency Department: What Does It Tell Us About Cannabis, Tobacco, and Other Drug Use?
BackgroundThe pediatric emergency department (PED) represents an opportune time for alcohol and drug screening. The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) recommends a two-question alcohol screen for adolescents as a predictor of alcohol and drug misuse.ObjectiveA multi-site PED study was conducted to determine the association between the NIAAA two-question alcohol screen and adolescent cannabis use disorders (CUD), cigarette smoking, and lifetime use of other drugs.MethodsParticipants included 12-17-year olds (n = 4834) treated in one of 16 participating PEDs. An assessment battery, including the NIAAA two-question screen and other measures of alcohol, tobacco and drug use, was self-administered on a tablet computer.ResultsA diagnosis of CUD, lifetime tobacco use or lifetime drug use was predicted by any self-reported alcohol use in the past year, which indicates a classification of moderate risk for middle school ages and low risk for high school ages on the NIAAA two-question screen. Drinking was most strongly predictive of a CUD, somewhat weaker for lifetime tobacco use, and weakest for lifetime drug use. This same pattern held for high school and middle school students and was stronger for high school students over middle school students for all three categories. This association was also found across gender, ethnicity and race. The association was strongest for CUD for high school students, sensitivity 81.7% (95% CI, 77.0, 86.5) and specificity 70.4% (95% CI, 68.6, 72.1). Conclusions/Importance: A single question about past year alcohol use can provide valuable information about other substance use, particularly marijuana
Recommended from our members
Predictive Validity of a 2-Question Alcohol Screen at 1-, 2-, and 3-Year Follow-up.
The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) 2-question screen is a valid adolescent alcohol screening tool. No studies have examined if this tool predicts future alcohol problems. We conducted a study at 16 pediatric emergency departments to determine the tool's predictive validity for alcohol misuse and alcohol use disorders (AUDs). Participants (N = 4834) completed a baseline assessment battery. A subsample of participants completed the battery at 1, 2, and 3 years follow up. Of the 2209 participants assigned to follow-up, 1611 (73%) completed a 1-year follow-up, 1591 (72%) completed a 2-year follow-up, and 1377 (62%) completed a 3-year follow-up. The differences in AUDs between baseline NIAAA screen nondrinkers and lower-risk drinkers were statistically significant at 1 year (P = .0002), 2 years (P <.0001), and 3 years (P = .0005), as were the differences between moderate- and highest-risk drinkers at 1 and 2 years (P < .0001 and P = .0088, respectively) but not at 3 years (P = .0758). The best combined score for sensitivity (86.2% at 1 year, 75.6% at 2 years, and 60.0% at 3 years) and specificity (78.1% at 1 year, 79.2% at 2 years, and 80.0% at 3 years) was achieved by using "lower risk" and higher as a cutoff for the prediction of a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition diagnosis. The NIAAA 2-question screen can accurately characterize adolescent risk for future AUDs. Future studies are needed to determine optimaluse of the screen
Recommended from our members
Reliability and Validity of the Newton Screen for Alcohol and Cannabis Misuse in a Pediatric Emergency Department Sample
ObjectivesTo determine the test-retest reliability, concurrent, convergent, and discriminant validity of a recently devised screen (the Newton screen) for alcohol and cannabis use/misuse, and its predictive validity at follow-up.Study designAdolescents, 12-17 years old (n = 4898), treated in 1 of 16 participating pediatric emergency departments across the US were enrolled in a study as part of a larger study within the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network. Concurrent and predictive validity (at 1, 2, and 3 years of follow-up) were assessed in a random subsample with a structured Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-based interview. Convergent validity was assessed with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification, a widely used alcohol screening measure.ResultsThe sensitivity of the Newton screen for alcohol use disorder at baseline was 78.3% with a specificity of 93.0%. The cannabis use question had a baseline sensitivity of 93.1% and specificity of 93.5% for cannabis use disorder. Predictive validity analyses at 1, 2, and 3 years revealed high specificity but low sensitivity for alcohol and high specificity and moderate sensitivity for cannabis.ConclusionsThe Newton screening instrument may be an appropriate brief screening tool for use in the busy clinical environment. Specificity was high for both alcohol and cannabis, but sensitivity was higher for cannabis than alcohol. Like other brief screens, more detailed follow-up questions may be necessary to definitively assess substance misuse risk and the need for referral to treatment
Adolescent Alcohol Use Predicts Cannabis Use over A Three Year Follow-Up Period
Background: Alcohol and cannabis use frequently co-occur, which can result in problems from social and academic impairment to dependence (i.e., alcohol use disorder [AUD] and/or cannabis use disorder [CUD]). The Emergency Department (ED) is an excellent site to identify adolescents with alcohol misuse, conduct a brief intervention, and refer to treatment; however, given time constraints, alcohol use may be the only substance assessed due to its common role in unintentional injury. The current study, a secondary data analysis, assessed the relationship between adolescent alcohol and cannabis use by examining the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) two question screen's (2QS) ability to predict future CUD at one, two, and three years post-ED visit. Methods: At baseline, data was collected via tablet self-report surveys from medically and behaviorally stable adolescents 12-17 years old (n = 1,689) treated in 16 pediatric EDs for non-life-threatening injury, illness, or mental health condition. Follow-up surveys were completed via telephone or web-based survey. Logistic regression compared CUD diagnosis odds at one, two, or three-year follow-up between levels constituting a single-level change in baseline risk categorization on the NIAAA 2QS (nondrinker versus low-risk, low- versus moderate-risk, moderate- versus high-risk). Receiver operating characteristic curve methods examined the predictive ability of the baseline NIAAA 2QS cut points for CUD at one, two, or three-year follow-up. Results: Adolescents with low alcohol risk had significantly higher rates of CUD versus nondrinkers (OR range: 1.94-2.76, p < .0001). For low and moderate alcohol risk, there was no difference in CUD rates (OR range: 1.00-1.08). CUD rates were higher in adolescents with high alcohol risk versus moderate risk (OR range: 2.39-4.81, p < .05). Conclusions: Even low levels of baseline alcohol use are associated with risk for a later CUD. The NIAAA 2QS is an appropriate assessment measure to gauge risk for future cannabis use
Recommended from our members
Efficacy of levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate for established status epilepticus by age group (ESETT): a double-blind, responsive-adaptive, randomised controlled trial
BackgroundBenzodiazepine-refractory, or established, status epilepticus is thought to be of similar pathophysiology in children and adults, but differences in underlying aetiology and pharmacodynamics might differentially affect response to therapy. In the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT) we compared the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate in established status epilepticus, and here we describe our results after extending enrolment in children to compare outcomes in three age groups.MethodsIn this multicentre, double-blind, response-adaptive, randomised controlled trial, we recruited patients from 58 hospital emergency departments across the USA. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 2 years or older, had been treated for a generalised convulsive seizure of longer than 5 min duration with adequate doses of benzodiazepines, and continued to have persistent or recurrent convulsions in the emergency department for at least 5 min and no more than 30 min after the last dose of benzodiazepine. Patients were randomly assigned in a response-adaptive manner, using Bayesian methods and stratified by age group (<18 years, 18-65 years, and >65 years), to levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, or valproate. All patients, investigators, study staff, and pharmacists were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was absence of clinically apparent seizures with improved consciousness and without additional antiseizure medication at 1 h from start of drug infusion. The primary safety outcome was life-threatening hypotension or cardiac arrhythmia. The efficacy and safety outcomes were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01960075.FindingsBetween Nov 3, 2015, and Dec 29, 2018, we enrolled 478 patients and 462 unique patients were included: 225 children (aged <18 years), 186 adults (18-65 years), and 51 older adults (>65 years). 175 (38%) patients were randomly assigned to levetiracetam, 142 (31%) to fosphenyltoin, and 145 (31%) were to valproate. Baseline characteristics were balanced across treatments within age groups. The primary efficacy outcome was met in those treated with levetiracetam for 52% (95% credible interval 41-62) of children, 44% (33-55) of adults, and 37% (19-59) of older adults; with fosphenytoin in 49% (38-61) of children, 46% (34-59) of adults, and 35% (17-59) of older adults; and with valproate in 52% (41-63) of children, 46% (34-58) of adults, and 47% (25-70) of older adults. No differences were detected in efficacy or primary safety outcome by drug within each age group. With the exception of endotracheal intubation in children, secondary safety outcomes did not significantly differ by drug within each age group.InterpretationChildren, adults, and older adults with established status epilepticus respond similarly to levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate, with treatment success in approximately half of patients. Any of the three drugs can be considered as a potential first-choice, second-line drug for benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus.FundingNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health