Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Psychiatry

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Psychosis associated with acute recreational drug toxicity: a European case series

  • Odd Martin Vallersnes1, 2Email authorView ORCID ID profile,
  • Alison M. Dines3,
  • David M. Wood3, 4,
  • Christopher Yates5,
  • Fridtjof Heyerdahl6,
  • Knut Erik Hovda6,
  • Isabelle Giraudon7,
  • Euro-DEN Research Group and
  • Paul I. Dargan3, 4
BMC PsychiatryBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201616:293

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-1002-7

Received: 9 February 2016

Accepted: 13 August 2016

Published: 18 August 2016

The Erratum to this article has been published in BMC Psychiatry 2016 16:405

Abstract

Background

Psychosis can be associated with acute recreational drug and novel psychoactive substance (NPS) toxicity. However, there is limited data available on how common this is and which drugs are most frequently implicated. We describe a European case series of psychosis associated with acute recreational drug toxicity, and estimate the frequency of psychosis for different recreational drugs.

Methods

The European Drug Emergencies Network (Euro-DEN) collects data on presentations to Emergency Departments (EDs) with acute recreational drug and NPS toxicity at 16 centres in ten countries. Euro-DEN data from October 2013 through September 2014 was retrospectively searched, and cases with psychosis were included. The proportion of cases with psychosis per drug was calculated in the searched Euro-DEN dataset.

Results

Psychosis was present in 348 (6.3%) of 5529 cases. The median (interquartile range) age was 29 (24-38) years, 276 (79.3%) were male and 114 (32.8%) were admitted to psychiatric ward. The drugs most commonly reported were cannabis in 90 (25.9%) cases, amphetamine in 87 (25.0%) and cocaine in 56 (16.1%). More than one drug was taken in 189 (54.3%) cases. Psychosis was frequent in those ED presentations involving tryptamines (4/7; 57.1%), methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) (6/22; 27.3%), methylphenidate (6/26; 23.1%), lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) (18/86; 20.9%), psilocybe mushrooms (3/16; 18.8%), synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists (4/26; 15.4%) and amphetamine (87/593; 14.7%), but less common in those involving mephedrone (14/245; 5.7%), methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) (20/461; 4.3%) and methedrone (3/92; 3.3%). Amphetamine was the most frequent drug associated with psychosis when only one agent was reported, with psychosis occurring in 32.4% of these presentations.

Conclusion

The frequency of psychosis in acute recreational drug toxicity varies considerably between drugs, but is a major problem in amphetamine poisoning. In rapidly changing drug markets and patterns of use, the Euro-DEN sentinel network contributes to measuring the scale of drug-related harms in Europe beyond other more established indicators.

Keywords

PsychosisPsychostimulantsHallucinogensNovel psychoactive substancesAmphetamineRecreational drugsAcute poisoningAcute toxicitySubstance use disorders

Background

Acute psychosis is a serious medical condition associated with significant morbidity [1]. Use of classic sympathomimetic drugs like amphetamine, methamphetamine and cocaine can induce acute psychosis [24]. Whilst the prevalence of psychosis in the community has been estimated at about 0.5% [5, 6], the prevalence of drug induced psychosis among regular drug users has been reported to be in the range of 8-46% for amphetamine [2] and 7-86% for cocaine [3]. The wide ranges are probably due to variations in methods of data collection and the populations studied [2, 3]. Recent decades have seen an increased potency of cannabis preparations [79], carrying an increased risk of psychosis [10]. Though most drug induced psychoses resolve within a few days, as many as 8-27% have been reported to persist for more than one month [1113].

Over the last decade there has been an increase in the availability and use of a multitude of novel psychoactive substances (NPS), with 101 new substances reported to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) in 2014 [8]. These NPS encompass a variety of drug classes, including the cathinones, phenethylamines, tryptamines, piperazines and synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists (SCRA) [1417]. There have been numerous reports of acute NPS toxicity associated with psychosis, involving several different drugs, among them methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV), mephedrone, alpha-methyltryptamine (AMT), 6-(2-aminopropyl)benzofuran (6-APB), diphenylprolinol (D2PM), and SCRAs [1728]. However, there is limited data available on how common psychosis is in patients presenting with acute recreational drug or NPS toxicity and which drugs are most frequently implicated.

The European Drug Emergencies Network (Euro-DEN) is a European Commission funded project which collected data on presentations to Emergency Departments (EDs) with acute recreational drug and NPS toxicity in 16 sentinel centres in ten European countries [29]. This has been continued as the Euro-DEN Plus network following completion of the initial project, with the aim of increasing the number of centres and coverage across Europe.

Methods

The aim of this study was to describe the cases of psychosis associated with acute recreational drug and NPS toxicity reported in the first year of the Euro-DEN project and to estimate the psychosis rate in acute toxicity presentations with different recreational drugs and NPS.

We have previously described the Euro-DEN methodology in detail [29]. The participating centres were mainly hospital emergency departments, some were specialist toxicology units, and one was a primary care emergency outpatient clinic. For the remainder of this article we will use the term recreational drugs to encompass both classical recreational drugs and NPS.

Inclusion

Patients presenting to a participating Euro-DEN centre with symptoms and/or signs consistent with acute recreational drug toxicity and/or directly related to recreational drug use were included in Euro-DEN; presentations with isolated ethanol intoxication were excluded. Recreational drugs were defined as any psychoactive compound taken for recreational rather than for medical or work purposes or deliberate self-harm (this included classical recreational drugs, NPS and prescription medicines); the drug(s) involved in the presentation were based on the patient’s self report and/or the clinical assessment of the treating physician. For each included case we collected a minimum data set of pre-defined demographic, clinical and outcome variables from information in the patients’ medical records. For this study, Euro-DEN data from October 2013 through September 2014 were retrospectively searched, and all presentations with psychosis as a clinical feature were included.

Psychosis was one of the pre-defined clinical features collected in the minimum data set. Psychosis was defined as any episode of delusions, transient or persistent, accompanied by confusion, hallucinations and lack of insight, based on the assessment of the treating clinician as documented in the patient’s notes.

Data extraction

The data extracted for this study were: age and gender, drugs taken, clinical observations at presentation (temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, conscious level, blood glucose), clinical features (psychosis, hallucinations, agitation, anxiety, hyperthermia), treatment and outcome (disposition from the ED, length of hospital stay and death in hospital).

Outcome measures

We calculated the proportion of presentations with psychosis for each drug amongst all presentations in the Euro-DEN dataset where the drug was reported, whether as a sole drug or in combination with others. We also calculated the odds ratio (OR) for presenting with psychosis for each drug.

Ethics

The study was done in accordance with the Helsinki declaration. Each centre obtained appropriate ethical approval to collect the data from their institution. Written consent from the patients was not necessary, as no data other than that collected as part of the routine clinical examination was being used for the project.

Statistics

Pearson’s chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test (for expected cell values five or less) were used to compare frequencies. T-test or Mann-Whitney U-test were used in comparisons of continuous variables. Logistic regression analyses were used to estimate the association between psychosis and different recreational drugs. For each drug the patients presenting without psychosis were defined as the reference group (OR = 1). In the multivariate analyses the odds ratios for psychosis being a clinical feature associated with a drug were adjusted for other drugs reported (Table 3). Analyses were done in IBM SPSS version 21 (IBM Corp.) and in an online calculator from EpiTools epidemiological calculators (http://epitools.ausvet.com.au) [30].

Results

Over the 12 month period there were 5529 cases with acute recreational drug toxicity reported to the Euro-DEN project from the participating centres, and psychosis was recorded as a clinical feature in 348 (6.3%). Table 1 lists the number of presentations with psychosis at each of the participating centres; the proportion of presentations with psychosis varied from 3.0 to 16.3%.
Table 1

Presentations with psychosis associated with acute recreational drug toxicity, per participating Euro-DEN centre

Centre, Country

Total presentations

n

Presentations with psychosis

n (%)

Barcelona, Spain

199

22 (11.1)

Basel, Switzerland

216

12 (5.6)

Copenhagen, Denmark

183

6 (3.3)

Drogheda, Ireland

36

4 (11.1)

Dublin, Ireland

526

19 (3.6)

Gdansk, Poland

144

17 (11.8)

London KCH, UK

422

13 (3.1)

London STH, UK

956

29 (3.0)

Mallorca, Spain

181

12 (6.6)

Munich, Germany

214

22 (10.3)

Oslo OAEOC, Norway

1478

113 (7.6)

Oslo OUH, Norway

199

9 (4.5)

Paris, France

454

42 (9.3)

Pärnu, Estonia

15

1 (6.7)

Tallinn, Estonia

104

17 (16.3)

York, UK

202

10 (5.0)

Total

5529

348 (6.3)

KCH: King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

OAEOC: Oslo Accident and Emergency Outpatient Clinic

OUH: Oslo University Hospital

STH: St Thomas’ Hospital (Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust)

UK: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Amongst the patients presenting with psychosis, the median (interquartile range (IQR)) age was 29 (24-38) years, and 276 (79.3%) were male (Table 2). In addition to psychosis, 63.2% had agitation, and 43.7% had hallucinations (Table 2). The drugs most commonly reported in the presentations with psychosis were cannabis in 90 (25.9% of the psychosis presentations), amphetamine in 87 (25.0%) and cocaine in 56 (16.1%). More than one drug was taken in 189 (54.3%) of the presentations with psychosis, including 105 (30.2%) cases in which ethanol was co-ingested.
Table 2

Presentations with psychosis – demographics, clinical data and disposition from the ED

 

Presentations with psychosis

Presentations without psychosis

 
 

n (%)

median (IQR)

mean (SD)

n (%)

median (IQR)

mean (SD)

p-value

Age

 Total

 

29 years (24-38)

  

31 years (24-39)

 

0.077b

 Males

276 (79.3)a

29 years (24-38)

 

3892 (75.1)a

32 years (25-39)

 

0.041b

 Females

72 (20.7)a

26.5 years (22-39)

 

1289 (24.9)a

28 years (22-37)

 

0.675b

Observations at presentation

 Respiratory rate

  

18 /min (5)

  

16 /min (5)

<0.001

 Heart rate

  

100 /min (22)

  

91 /min (24)

< 0.001

 Systolic blood pressure

  

131 mmHg (20)

  

125 mmHg (21)

< 0.001

 Diastolic blood pressure

  

80 mmHg (16)

  

77 mmHg (16)

0.004

 Temperature

  

36.7 °C (0.8)

  

36.3 °C (0.9)

< 0.001

 Blood glucose

 

5.7 mmol/L (5.1-6.9)

  

5.6 mmol/L (4.9-6.7)

 

0.079

Conscious level

  Alert (GCS 15)

203 (58.3)

  

2564 (49.5)

  

0.002

  Drowsy (GCS 8-14)

122 (35.1)

  

2013 (38.9)

  

0.002

  Comatose (GCS ≤ 7)

9 (2.6)

  

448 (8.6)

  

< 0.001

  Not recorded

14 (4.0)

  

156 (3.0)

  

0.369

Clinical features

 Hallucinations

152 (43.7)

  

232 (4.5)

  

< 0.001

 Agitation/aggression

220 (63.2)

  

1247 (24.1)

  

< 0.001

 Anxiety

129 (37.1)

  

911 (17.6)

  

< 0.001

 Hyperthermia

7 (2.0)

  

67 (1.3)

  

0.375

Disposition from ED

 Medically discharged

132 (37.9)

  

3016 (58.2)

  

< 0.001

 Self discharge

50 (14.4)

  

906 (17.5)

  

0.157

 Admitted critical care

14 (4.0)

  

318 (6.1)

  

0.140

 Admitted psychiatric ward

114 (32.8)

  

170 (3.3)

  

< 0.001

 Admitted other

38 (10.9)

  

739 (14.3)

  

0.097

 Death

-

  

16 (0.3)

  

0.601

 Unknown

-

  

16 (0.3)

  

0.601

Length of stay in hospital

 

5.1 hours (2.3-13.6)

  

4.6 hours (2.5-9.7)

 

0.176

Total

348 (100)

  

5181 (100)

   

aNo significant difference in gender proportions between presentations with and without psychosis (p = 0.091)

bp-value for comparison of age

ED: emergency department; GCS: Glasgow Coma Scale; IQR: interquartile range; SD: standard deviation

The strongest associations with psychosis were found for tryptamines (psychosis in 57.1% of presentations; adjusted OR 12.4), MDPV (27.3%; adjusted OR 6.5), methylphenidate (23.1%; adjusted OR 3.9), lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) (20.9%; adjusted OR 3.1), amphetamine (14.7%; adjusted OR 3.0), and methamphetamine (11.3%; adjusted OR 2.3) (Table 3).
Table 3

Drugs associated with psychosis – logistic regression analysis

 

All presentations where the drug was reported

Crude

Adjusted

Presentations where the drug was the single agent reported

Drug

Total

n (%)

With psychosis

n (%)

Odds ratio

95% CI

p-value

Odds ratio

95% CI

p-value

Total

n (%)

With psychosis

n (%)

Tryptamines

7 (0.1)

4 (57.1)

20.1

4.5 – 90.0

< 0.001

12.4

2.3 – 65.2

0.003

2 (0.1)

2 (100)

MDPV

22 (0.4)

6 (27.3)

5.7

2.2 – 14.6

< 0.001

6.5

2.2 – 19.2

0.001

2 (0.1)

2 (100)

Methylphenidate

26 (0.5)

6 (23.1)

4.5

1.8 – 11.3

0.001

3.9

1.5 – 10.2

0.006

5 (0.2)

2 (40.0)

LSD

86 (1.6)

18 (20.9)

4.1

2.4 – 7.0

< 0.001

3.1

1.8 – 5.5

< 0.001

27 (1.3)

7 (25.9)

Amphetamine

593 (10.7)

87 (14.7)

3.1

2.4 – 4.0

< 0.001

3.0

2.3 – 4.0

< 0.001

136 (6.7)

44 (32.4)

Methamphetamine

186 (3.4)

21 (11.3)

2.0

1.2 – 3.1

0.005

2.3

1.4 – 3.8

0.001

44 (2.2)

8 (18.2)

Psilocybe mushroomsa

16 (0.3)

3 (18.8)

3.5

0.98 – 12.2

0.054

2.2

0.60 – 8.0

0.24

6 (0.3)

1 (16.7)

SCRA

26 (0.5)

4 (15.4)

2.7

0.93 – 8.0

0.066

1.8

0.61 – 5.4

0.29

17 (0.8)

3 (17.6)

Cannabis

904 (16.4)

90 (10.0)

1.9

1.5 – 2.4

< 0.001

1.5

1.2 – 2.0

0.002

216 (10.6)

31 (14.4)

Z-drugs

106 (1.9)

8 (7.5)

1.2

0.59 – 2.5

0.59

1.4

0.68 – 3.1

0.34

16 (0.8)

-

Fentanyl

47 (0.9)

4 (8.5)

1.4

0.50 – 3.9

0.53

1.3

0.44 – 3.9

0.64

10 (0.5)

2 (20.0)

Tramadol

34 (0.6)

3 (8.8)

1.4

0.44 – 4.7

0.55

1.3

0.39 – 4.7

0.64

5 (0.2)

1 (20.0)

Crack

136 (2.5)

6 (4.4)

0.68

0.30 – 1.6

0.36

1.1

0.45 – 2.5

0.89

24 (1.2)

3 (12.5)

Cocaine

957 (17.3)

56 (5.9)

0.91

0.68 – 1.2

0.54

0.93

0.68 – 1.3

0.65

164 (8.1)

11 (6.7)

Pregabalin

79 (1.4)

4 (5.1)

0.79

0.29 – 2.2

0.65

0.92

0.31 – 2.8

0.88

3 (0.1)

-

Mephedrone

245 (4.4)

14 (5.7)

0.90

0.52 – 1.6

0.70

0.90

0.50 – 1.6

0.72

72 (3.5)

4 (5.6)

Buprenorphine

89 (1.6)

6 (6.7)

1.1

0.47 – 2.5

0.86

0.90

0.36 – 2.2

0.82

16 (0.8)

1 (6.3)

Ketamine

128 (2.3)

5 (3.9)

0.60

0.24 – 1.5

0.27

0.59

0.23 – 1.5

0.26

12 (0.6)

-

MDMA

461 (8.3)

20 (4.3)

0.66

0.41 – 1.0

0.073

0.58

0.36 – 0.95

0.030

59 (2.9)

-

Benzodiazepines

1011 (18.3)

34 (3.4)

0.47

0.33 – 0.67

< 0.001

0.53

0.36 – 0.78

0.001

79 (3.9)

2 (2.5)

Methedrone

92 (1.7)

3 (3.3)

0.50

0.16 – 1.6

0.24

0.49

0.15 – 1.6

0.24

21 (1.0)

1 (4.8)

GHB/GBL

710 (12.8)

25 (3.5)

0.51

0.34 – 0.77

0.001

0.38

0.25 – 0.59

< 0.001

215 (10.6)

4 (1.9)

Methadone

248 (4.5)

6 (2.4)

0.36

0.16 – 0.81

0.014

0.34

0.14 – 0.80

0.014

38 (1.9)

1 (2.6)

Heroin

1344 (24.3)

21 (1.6)

0.19

0.12 – 0.29

< 0.001

0.18

0.11 – 0.28

< 0.001

564 (27.8)

8 (1.4)

Other cathinones

20 (0.4)

4 (20.0)

3.8

1.2 – 11.3

0.019

3.0

0.97 – 9.4

0.057

10 (0.5)

1 (10.0)

Other amphetamine derivatives

27 (0.5)

4 (14.8)

2.6

0.90 – 7.6

0.078

1.8

0.57 – 5.5

0.33

4 (0.2)

2 (50.0)

Other stimulants

36 (0.7)

5 (13.9)

2.4

0.94 – 6.4

0.068

2.0

0.75 – 5.3

0.17

8 (0.4)

3 (37.5)

Other hallucinogens

55 (1.0)

8 (14.5)

2.6

1.2 – 5.5

0.015

2.3

1.0 – 5.1

0.040

20 (1.0)

3 (15.0)

Ethanolb

2145 (38.8)

105 (4.9)

0.66

0.53 – 0.84

< 0.001

0.54

0.42 – 0.69

< 0.001

-

-

Other opioids

204 (3.7)

5 (2.5)

0.36

0.15 – 0.89

0.031

0.30

0.12 – 0.75

0.010

51 (2.5)

-

Total

5529 (100)c

348 (6.3)

      

2030 (100)

159 (7.8)

Adjusted odds ratios with p < 0.05 are given in bold types

CI: confidence interval

GBL: gamma-butyrolactone

GHB: gamma-hydroxybutyrate

LSD: lysergic acid diethylamide

MDMA: methylenedioxymethamphetamine

MDPV: methylenedioxypyrovalerone

NPS: novel psychoactive substances

SCRA: Synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists

aIncludes three presentations reporting psilocybin

bEthanol only included as co-ingestion

cPercentages do not add up to 100 as in several cases more than one drug was reported

In the 159 single agent cases, the largest proportions of presentations with psychosis were found for tryptamines (2/2; 100%), MDPV (2/2;100%), methylphenidate (2/5; 40.0%), amphetamine (44/136; 32.4%), and LSD (7/27; 25.9%) (Table 3). For benzodiazepines the proportion of presentations with psychosis was small (3.4%), and nearly all (94.1%) benzodiazepine cases with psychosis were in combination with other drugs.

Treatment was required in 192 (55.2%) of the presentations with psychosis, including sedation in 154 (44.3%). The most common sedatives/antipsychotics given were benzodiazepines in 127 (36.5%) cases, olanzapine in 27 (7.8%), haloperidol in 26 (7.5%) and propofol in 14 (4.0%). The median length of stay in hospital was 5.1 hours (IQR 2.3-13.6). In 132 (37.9%) cases the patient was medically discharged from the ED, a significantly lower proportion than the 58.2% among those without psychosis (p < 0.001) (Table 2). In 114 (32.8%) cases the patient was admitted to a psychiatric ward, compared to 3.3 % among those without psychosis (p < 0.001). There was no difference in the proportions admitted to critical care.

Discussion

Psychosis was a clinical feature in 6.3% of this European case series of 5529 presentations to an ED with acute recreational drug toxicity. The association with psychosis varied considerably between drugs. Not surprisingly, the associations were strongest for hallucinogens and some central stimulants. Overall, cannabis, amphetamine and cocaine were the drugs most commonly involved in presentations with psychosis. Amphetamine was the drug most frequently involved in single agent presentations, with 32.4% single agent amphetamine cases presenting with psychosis. Amongst the NPS, psychosis was rare in presentations involving mephedrone and methedrone, but occurred more frequently with tryptamines, MDPV, methylphenidate and the SCRAs.

Among the patients presenting with recreational drug toxicity and psychosis, 63.2% were agitated and/or aggressive (compared to 24.1% of those without psychosis), 43.7% had hallucinations (compared to 4.5%), and 32.8% were admitted to a psychiatric ward (compared to 3.3%), indicating that this is a group of patients with substantial resource implications. Furthermore, acute psychosis induced by substance use is, until it has resolved, difficult to distinguish clinically from schizophrenic psychosis [31, 32]. Some authors have questioned whether they are separate entities at all [2, 3335]. Longer duration of untreated psychosis is associated with poorer outcome, though a causal relationship has not been established [36]. However, there is evidence suggesting that early intervention, reducing the duration of untreated psychosis, could be helpful [3739].

Cannabis, amphetamine and cocaine were the drugs most commonly involved in presentations with psychosis in our study. This is to be expected as they are commonly used in Europe [8] and carry the risk of inducing acute psychosis [2, 3, 40]. We found amphetamine more frequently associated with psychosis than cannabis and cocaine, both as a single agent and in the logistic regression analysis, confirming that psychosis is a major feature of acute amphetamine toxicity. Cannabis, but not cocaine, was significantly associated with psychosis in the logistic regression analysis.

Among the NPS, tryptamines, MDPV and SCRAs were the drugs most frequently involved in presentations with psychosis. In our study, 57.1% of patients with tryptamine poisoning presented with psychosis, a larger proportion than the 23.6% reported among 55 enquiries concerning AMT in a poison centre case series in the UK [27]. This substantiates previous reports noting psychosis as a prominent clinical feature of acute tryptamine toxicity [41]. In a study of 23 patients with acute MDPV toxicity seen by medical toxicologists in the US, psychosis was reported in 8.7% [28]. This is less than the 27.3% in our study, and our findings are more in keeping with a US poison centre study of 236 cases of MDPV toxicity, where 36% had paranoia, 34% confusion and 40% hallucinations [18]. In our study, 15.4% of those presenting with acute SCRA toxicity had psychosis – this is comparable to the 9-11% reporting hallucinations and delusion to US poison centres in two case series of 1353 and 418 acute SCRA exposures [23, 24]. However, a German case series of 29 ED presentations with laboratory confirmed acute SCRA toxicity reported only one case of acute psychosis though 38% of the patients had hallucinations or changes of perception [42]. For mephedrone, 5.7% of patients in our study presented with psychosis, slightly less than the 8% reported among 488 enquiries to UK poison centres [27] and the 9% with paranoia and hallucinations among 57 presentations to the ED in a Scottish case series [43]. No psychotic features were reported among seven cases with laboratory confirmed mephedrone toxicity in a London ED [44].

Psychosis has previously been reported as a feature of acute methylphenidate toxicity as well as a potential side effect of methylphenidate treatment [45]. In our study, 23.1% of presentations involving methylphenidate had psychosis.

Tramadol and fentanyl differed from the other opioids, with a larger proportion of presentations with psychosis. Though only seven cases with psychosis were seen involving these drugs, two were single agent cases with fentanyl and one with tramadol. We have only found one previous report of psychosis as a clinical feature of tramadol toxicity [46], and none involving fentanyl.

In addition to the risk of inducing acute psychosis, regular use of several recreational drugs, especially amphetamine, methamphetamine and cannabis, has been shown to be associated with later development of chronic psychosis or schizophrenia [2, 11, 34, 47]. Japanese studies have reported schizophrenia-like psychosis in methamphetamine users persisting for months to years after discontinuation of methamphetamine use [11, 33]. A large cohort study in California found an increased risk of later being diagnosed with schizophrenia in previously non-psychotic hospitalised users of methamphetamine or cannabis [34]. A meta-analysis of seven studies found cannabis use to be an independent risk factor for later development of chronic psychosis [47]. The risk was higher the more cannabis was used, and the earlier in life the start of the exposure [47]. It also seems that patients with previous substance use associated psychosis are at greater risk of subsequent psychotic episodes [2, 33].

Limitations

Data on previous psychiatric diagnoses were not collected. Therefore, we are not able to determine whether the psychosis seen at the time of the acute recreational drug toxicity presentation was an acute psychosis, the patient’s regular psychotic state or an exacerbation of a chronic psychosis. Furthermore, we did not collect information on the frequency or duration of drug use. It is possible that large proportions of presentations with psychosis reflect drugs of choice for patients with chronic psychosis [48]. We do not have any follow-up data for the patients in our study. However, the short length of stay and high proportion of patients medically discharged from the ED suggests that in a substantial proportion the psychosis was of limited duration.

The diagnosis of psychosis was made by the treating ED clinician, and not necessarily by a psychiatrist. Consequently, there is a potential for misdiagnosis; although this represents routine clinical practice and assessment/management of patients in European EDs with acute recreational drug toxicity. There may also be inconsistencies in the diagnosis of psychosis across countries. This may possibly contribute to the variation of psychosis rates between centres seen in our material. The diagnosis of psychosis was mainly based on the assessment of the clinician treating the patient. Therefore, some inter-rater variability must be expected. On the other hand, our results are based on decisions made in real clinical situations, strengthening their generalizability.

Drug(s) involved in the presentations were based on patient self-report. Patients may not report all drugs ingested, and may not know the actual psychoactive ingredient in the substance(s) taken. There is the potential that this will lead to some misclassification. However, this reflects the actual clinical situation in most settings treating acute poisoning, as well as current best practice in toxicology, in which patients are managed based on their clinical presentation.

The proportion of presentations with psychosis is not a measure of a drug’s potential to induce psychosis. Rather, it is a measure of to what extent psychosis is part of the problems associated with the drug’s acute toxicity. For many drugs the numbers in our study are small, and for these drugs the results should be interpreted with caution.

Conclusions

There is considerable variation between drugs in how commonly psychosis is a feature of acute recreational drug toxicity. Psychosis was seen in a large proportion of presentations with acute amphetamine toxicity. Amongst the NPS, although numbers were small, psychosis was rare in mephedrone and methedrone poisoning, but occurred frequently with tryptamines, MDPV and the synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists; psychosis was also common in presentations involving methylphenidate.

In rapidly changing drug markets, the Euro-DEN sentinel network contributes to measuring the scale of drug-related harms in Europe beyond other more established European indicators [4951]. Further study is required in larger cohorts to understand the associations found and consider other factors such as the importance of underlying psychiatric co-morbidity. However, in this series, psychosis was seen in a significant minority of presentations and this has important implications for prevention, follow-up and referral for further treatment, and represents an important burden on health services.

Notes

Abbreviations

6-APB: 

6-(2-aminopropyl)benzofuran

AMT: 

Alpha-methyltryptamine

D2PM: 

Diphenylprolinol

ED: 

Emergency department

EMCDDA: 

The European monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction

Euro-DEN: 

The European drug emergencies network

IQR: 

Interquartile range

LSD: 

Lysergic acid diethylamide

MDMA: 

Methylenedioxymethamphetamine

MDPV: 

Methylenedioxypyrovalerone

NPS: 

Novel psychoactive substances

OR: 

Odds ratio

SCRA: 

Synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists

Declarations

Acknowledgement

Euro-DEN Research Group - Corporate Author: Jacek Sein Anand, Alan Blake, Lucie Chevillard, Florian Eyer, Miguel Galicia, Catalina Homar, Gesche Jürgens, E. Liakoni, M.E. Liechti, Gerard Markey, Bruno Mégarbane, Oscar Miro, Adrian Moughty, Niall O'Connor, Raido Paasma, Carsten Boe Pedersen, Kristiina Pöld, Jordi Puiguriguer, Roumen Sedefov, Jochen Stenzel, Wojciech Waldman, W Stephen Waring.

Funding

The Euro-DEN Project was funded by the DPIP/ISEC Programme of the European Union; all of the authors had funding from the European Commission through the Euro-DEN project except MEL and EL whose costs were co-funded by the Swiss Centre of Applied Human Toxicology, RS and IG whose costs were funded by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, and KP.

Availability of data and materials

Data are not available for sharing. Several manuscripts based on Euro-DEN data are in preparation.

Authors’ contribution

PD, DW, AD, IG, KEH, FH, CY and OMV designed the study. The Euro-DEN research group contributed to developing the design. All authors including the Euro-DEN research group, except IG and RS, collected data. AD collated the data. OMV analysed the data and drafted the manuscript. All authors including the Euro-DEN research group revised the manuscript and approved the final version.

Competing interests

PD and DW work with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and the UK Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Patient consent was not required as the data collated for Euro-DEN was collected as part of routine clinical care; individual Euro-DEN centres obtained appropriate local ethical approval for data collation [51].

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of General Practice, University of Oslo
(2)
Oslo Accident and Emergency Outpatient Clinic, City of Oslo Health Agency
(3)
Clinical Toxicology, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s Health Partners
(4)
Clinical Toxicology, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King’s College London
(5)
Emergency Department and Clinical Toxicology Unit, Hospital Universitari Son Espases
(6)
The Norwegian CBRNe Centre of Medicine, Oslo University Hospital
(7)
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)

References

  1. Byrne P. Managing the acute psychotic episode. BMJ. 2007;334:686–92.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Bramness JG, Gundersen OH, Guterstam J, Rognli EB, Konstenius M, Loberg EM, et al. Amphetamine-induced psychosis--a separate diagnostic entity or primary psychosis triggered in the vulnerable? BMC Psychiatry. 2012;12:221.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Roncero C, Daigre C, Grau-Lopez L, Barral C, Perez-Pazos J, Martinez-Luna N, et al. An international perspective and review of cocaine-induced psychosis: a call to action. Subst Abuse. 2014;35:321–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Smith MJ, Thirthalli J, Abdallah AB, Murray RM, Cottler LB. Prevalence of psychotic symptoms in substance users: a comparison across substances. Comp Psychiatry. 2009;50:245–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Brugha T, Singleton N, Meltzer H, Bebbington P, Farrell M, Jenkins R, et al. Psychosis in the community and in prisons: a report from the British National Survey of psychiatric morbidity. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162:774–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Morgan VA, Waterreus A, Jablensky A, Mackinnon A, McGrath JJ, Carr V, et al. People living with psychotic illness in 2010: the second Australian national survey of psychosis. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2012;46:735–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Mehmedic Z, Chandra S, Slade D, Denham H, Foster S, Patel AS, et al. Potency trends of Delta9-THC and other cannabinoids in confiscated cannabis preparations from 1993 to 2008. J Forensic Sci. 2010;55:1209–17.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. European monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction (EMCDDA). European Drug Report 2015. Trends and developments. Lisbon: EMCDDA; 2015.Google Scholar
  9. Europol and European monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction (EMCDDA). EU drug markets report: a strategic analysis. Luxembourg: Publications office of the European Union; 2013.Google Scholar
  10. Di Forti M, Marconi A, Carra E, Fraietta S, Trotta A, Bonomo M, et al. Proportion of patients in south London with first-episode psychosis attributable to use of high potency cannabis: a case-control study. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2015;2:233–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Iwanami A, Sugiyama A, Kuroki N, Toda S, Kato N, Nakatani Y, et al. Patients with methamphetamine psychosis admitted to a psychiatric hospital in Japan. A preliminary report. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1994;89:428–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Fasihpour B, Molavi S, Shariat SV. Clinical features of inpatients with methamphetamine-induced psychosis. J Ment Health. 2013;22:341–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Arendt M, Rosenberg R, Foldager L, Perto G, Munk-Jorgensen P. Cannabis-induced psychosis and subsequent schizophrenia-spectrum disorders: follow-up study of 535 incident cases. Br J Psychiatry. 2005;187:510–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). The challenge of new psychoactive substances: a report from the global SMART programme. Vienna: UNODC; 2013.Google Scholar
  15. Hill SL, Thomas SH. Clinical toxicology of newer recreational drugs. Clin Toxicol. 2011;49:705–19.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Wood DM, Greene SL, Dargan PI. Five-year trends in self-reported recreational drugs associated with presentation to a UK emergency department with suspected drug-related toxicity. Eur J Emerg Med. 2013;20:263–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hohmann N, Mikus G, Czock D. Effects and risks associated with novel psychoactive substances: mislabeling and sale as bath salts, spice, and research chemicals. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2014;111:139–47.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Spiller HA, Ryan ML, Weston RG, Jansen J. Clinical experience with and analytical confirmation of "bath salts" and "legal highs" (synthetic cathinones) in the United States. Clin Toxicol. 2011;49:499–505.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Castaneto MS, Gorelick DA, Desrosiers NA, Hartman RL, Pirard S, Huestis MA. Synthetic cannabinoids: epidemiology, pharmacodynamics, and clinical implications. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;144:12–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Chan WL, Wood DM, Hudson S, Dargan PI. Acute psychosis associated with recreational use of benzofuran 6-(2-aminopropyl)benzofuran (6-APB) and cannabis. J Med Toxicol. 2013;9(3):278–81.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Papanti D, Schifano F, Botteon G, Bertossi F, Mannix J, Vidoni D, et al. “Spiceophrenia”: a systematic overview of “spice”-related psychopathological issues and a case report. Hum Psychopharmacol. 2013;28:379–89.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Wood DM, Dargan PI. Use and acute toxicity associated with the novel psychoactive substances diphenylprolinol (D2PM) and desoxypipradrol (2-DPMP). Clin Toxicol. 2012;50:727–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoyte CO, Jacob J, Monte AA, Al-Jumaan M, Bronstein AC, Heard KJ. A characterization of synthetic cannabinoid exposures reported to the National Poison Data System in 2010. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;60:435–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Forrester MB, Kleinschmidt K, Schwarz E, Young A. Synthetic cannabinoid and marijuana exposures reported to poison centers. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2012;31:1006–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. James D, Adams RD, Spears R, Cooper G, Lupton DJ, Thompson JP, et al. Clinical characteristics of mephedrone toxicity reported to the U.K. National Poisons information service. Emerg Med J. 2011;28:686–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kamour A, James D, Lupton DJ, Cooper G, Eddleston M, Vale A, et al. Patterns of presentation and clinical features of toxicity after reported use of ([2-aminopropyl]-2,3-dihydrobenzofurans), the ‘benzofuran’ compounds. A report from the United Kingdom National Poisons Information Service. Clin Toxicol. 2014;52:1025–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Kamour A, James D, Spears R, Cooper G, Lupton DJ, Eddleston M, et al. Patterns of presentation and clinical toxicity after reported use of alpha methyltryptamine in the United Kingdom. A report from the UK national poisons information service. Clin Toxicol. 2014;52:192–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Froberg BA, Levine M, Beuhler MC, Judge BS, Moore PW, Engebretsen KM, et al. Acute methylenedioxypyrovalerone toxicity. J Med Toxicol. 2015;11:185–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Wood DM, Heyerdahl F, Yates CB, Dines AM, Giraudon I, Hovda KE, et al. The European Drug Emergencies Network (Euro-DEN). Clin Toxicol. 2014;52:239–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Sergeant ESG. Epitools epidemiological calculators. AusVet Animal Health Services and Australian Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre for Emerging Infectious Disease. 2016. http://epitools.ausvet.com.au. Accessed 8 Jan 2016Google Scholar
  31. Medhus S, Mordal J, Holm B, Morland J, Bramness JG. A comparison of symptoms and drug use between patients with methamphetamine associated psychoses and patients diagnosed with schizophrenia in two acute psychiatric wards. Psychiatry Res. 2013;206:17–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Srisurapanont M, Arunpongpaisal S, Wada K, Marsden J, Ali R, Kongsakon R. Comparisons of methamphetamine psychotic and schizophrenic symptoms: a differential item functioning analysis. Progr Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2011;35:959–64.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Yui K, Ikemoto S, Ishiguro T, Goto K. Studies of amphetamine or methamphetamine psychosis in Japan: relation of methamphetamine psychosis to schizophrenia. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2000;914:1–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Callaghan RC, Cunningham JK, Allebeck P, Arenovich T, Sajeev G, Remington G, et al. Methamphetamine use and schizophrenia: a population-based cohort study in California. Am J Psychiatry. 2012;169:389–96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Mathias S, Lubman DI, Hides L. Substance-induced psychosis: a diagnostic conundrum. J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;69:358–67.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Marshall M, Lewis S, Lockwood A, Drake R, Jones P, Croudace T. Association between duration of untreated psychosis and outcome in cohorts of first-episode patients: a systematic review. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62:975–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Marshall M, Rathbone J. Early intervention for psychosis. Schizophr Bull. 2011;37:1111–4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Stafford MR, Jackson H, Mayo-Wilson E, Morrison AP, Kendall T. Early interventions to prevent psychosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013;346:f185.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Hegelstad WT, Larsen TK, Auestad B, Evensen J, Haahr U, Joa I, et al. Long-term follow-up of the TIPS early detection in psychosis study: effects on 10-year outcome. Am J Psychiatry. 2012;169:374–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. D'Souza DC, Perry E, MacDougall L, Ammerman Y, Cooper T, Wu YT, et al. The psychotomimetic effects of intravenous delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in healthy individuals: implications for psychosis. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2004;29:1558–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Greene SL. Tryptamines. In: Dargan PI, Wood DM, editors. Novel psychoactive substances: classification, pharmacology and toxicology. London: Academic press; 2013. p. 363–81.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Hermanns-Clausen M, Kneisel S, Szabo B, Auwarter V. Acute toxicity due to the confirmed consumption of synthetic cannabinoids: clinical and laboratory findings. Addiction. 2013;108:534–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Regan L, Mitchelson M, Macdonald C. Mephedrone toxicity in a Scottish emergency department. Emerg Med J. 2011;28:1055–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Wood DM, Davies S, Greene SL, Button J, Holt DW, Ramsey J, et al. Case series of individuals with analytically confirmed acute mephedrone toxicity. Clin Toxicol. 2010;48:924–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Kraemer M, Uekermann J, Wiltfang J, Kis B. Methylphenidate-induced psychosis in adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: report of 3 new cases and review of the literature. Clin Neuropharmacol. 2010;33:204–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Chen KJ, Lu ML, Shen WW. Tramadol-related psychosis in a patient with bipolar I disorder. Acta Neuropsychiatr. 2015;27:126–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Semple DM, McIntosh AM, Lawrie SM. Cannabis as a risk factor for psychosis: systematic review. J Psychopharmacol. 2005;19:187–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Gregg L, Barrowclough C, Haddock G. Reasons for increased substance use in psychosis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2007;27:494–510.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. European monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction (EMCDDA). Key epidemiological indicators. http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/activities/key-indicators. Accessed 9 Sept 2015.
  50. Heyerdahl F, Hovda KE, Giraudon I, Yates C, Dines AM, Sedefov R, et al. Current European data collection on emergency department presentations with acute recreational drug toxicity: gaps and national variations. Clin Toxicol. 2014;52:1005–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Dines AM, Wood DM, Yates C, Heyerdahl F, Hovda KE, Giraudon I, et al. Acute recreational drug and new psychoactive substance toxicity in Europe: 12 months data collection from the European Drug Emergencies Network (Euro-DEN). Clin Toxicol. 2015;53:893–900.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016

Advertisement