Search

Aims: Most research exploring the link between traumatic events and psychotic experiences has focused on either Australia, Europe or North America. In this study, we expand the existing knowledge to Thailand and investigate the impact of the type and the number of traumatic events on psychotic experiences in Thailand. Methods: We used data from the nationally representative 2013 Thai National Mental Health Survey (TNMHS), including questions on traumatic events and psychotic experiences. We regressed the lifetime experience of hallucinations or delusions against the following independent variables: the experience of any traumatic event during lifetime (dichotomous; hypothesis 1); the experience of either no traumatic event, one interpersonal, one unintentional or both interpersonal and unintentional traumatic events (categorical; hypothesis 2) and the number of traumatic events experienced during lifetime (categorical; hypothesis 3). We adjusted the regression models for sociodemographic indicators and psychiatric disorders, and considered survey weights. Results: About 6% (95% confidence interval: 4.9–7.0) of the respondents stated that they had either hallucinatory or delusional experiences during their lifetime. The risk of reporting such experiences was more than doubled as high among respondents who had experienced at least one traumatic event during their lifetime than among those who had not yet experienced one, with higher risks for interpersonal or multiple traumatic events. Our results further indicated an increase in the risk of psychotic experiences as the number of traumatic events increased, with up to an eight-fold higher risk for people exposed to five or more traumatic events in their lifetime, compared to those with no traumatic events. Conclusions: Individuals reporting interpersonal or multiple traumatic events face much higher risk of psychotic experiences. Effective and widely accessible secondary prevention programmes for people having experienced interpersonal or multiple traumatic events constitute a key intervention option. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims To estimate the prevalence of problem and pathological gambling, gender and age-group differences in gambling types, and comorbidities with other psychiatric disorders among the Thai general population. Methods Analysis was conducted on 4,727 participants of Thailand's 2013 National Mental Health Survey, a multistage stratified cluster survey, using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Diagnoses of problem and pathological gambling and other psychiatric disorders were based on the DSM-IV-TR criteria with the following additional criteria for gamblers: more than 10 lifetime gambling episodes and a single year loss of at least 365 USD from gambling. Results The estimated lifetime prevalence rates of pathological and problem gambling were 0.90% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-1.29] and 1.14% (95% CI: 0.58-1.70), respectively. The most popular type of gambling was playing lotteries [69.5%, standard error (SE) = 1.9], the prevalence of which was significantly higher among females and older age groups. The most common psychiatric disorders seen among pathological gamblers were alcohol abuse (57.4%), nicotine dependence (49.5%), and any drug use disorder (16.2%). Pathological gambling was highly prevalent among those who ever experienced major depressive episodes (5.5%), any drug dependence (5.1%), and intermittent explosive disorder (4.8%). The association between pathological gambling was strongest with a history of major depressive episode [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 10.4, 95% CI: 2.80-38.4]. Conclusion The study confirms the recognition of gambling disorders as a public health concern in Thailand and suggests a need for culturally specific preventive measures for pathological gamblers and those with a history of substance use disorders or major depression.

Background: The ease of synthesis from inexpensive and readily available chemicals makes possible the wide spread of amphetamine dependence and abuse. Amphetamine use is of concern because it causes a variety of devastating health consequences, including physical and neurological disorders due to amphetamines, amphetamine-induced mental disorders, health consequences of amphetamine use and social consequences of amphetamine use., Objectives: To search and determine risks, benefits and costs of a variety treatments for amphetamine dependence or abuse., Search Strategy: Electronic searches of MEDLINE (1966 - December 2000), EMBASE (1980 - February 2001), CINAHL (1982 - January 2001) and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library 2000 issue 4) were undertaken. References to the articles obtained by any means were searched., Selection Criteria: All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) were included. Participants were people with amphetamine dependence or abuse, diagnosed by any set of criteria. Any kinds of biological and psychological treatment both alone and combined were examined. A variety of outcomes, for example, number of treatment responders, score changes, were considered., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers evaluated and extracted the data independently. The dichotomous data were extracted on an intention-to-treat basis in which the dropouts were assigned as participants with the worst outcomes. The Relative Risk (RR) with the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was used to assess the dichotomous data. The Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) with 95% CI was used to assessed the continuous data., Main Results: Fluoxetine, amlodipine, imipramine and desipramine have been investigated in four randomised-controlled trials. In comparison to placebo, short-term treatment of fluoxetine (40 mg/day) significantly decreased craving. In comparison to imipramine 10 mg/day, medium-term treatment of imipramine 150 mg/day significantly increased the duration of adherence to treatment. All four drugs had no benefits on a variety of outcomes, including amphetamine use., Reviewer's Conclusions: The evidence about the treatment for amphetamine dependence and abuse is very limited. It shows that fluoxetine, amlodipine, imipramine and desipramine have very limited benefits for amphetamine dependence and abuse. Fluoxetine may decrease craving in short-term treatment. Imipramine may increase duration of adherence to treatment in medium-term treatment. Apart from these, no other benefits, in particular proximal benefits, can be found. This limited evidence suggests that no treatment has been demonstrated to be effective for the treatment of amphetamine dependence and abuse. Although there is a large number of people with amphetamine dependence and abuse worldwide, very few controlled trials in this issue have been conducted. As the previous treatment trials show no promising result, other treatments, both biological and psychosocial, should be further investigated. However, the results of neurotoxic studies of amphetamines are also crucial for the study designs appropriate for further treatment studies for amphetamine dependence and abuse.

Background: Amphetamine withdrawal has been less studied although it is a common problem with a prevalent rate of 87% among amphetamine users. Its symptoms, in particular intense craving, may be a critical factor leading to relapse of amphetamine use. In clinical practice, treatment for cocaine withdrawal has been recommended for the management of amphetamine withdrawal although the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of these two substances are not the same., Objectives: To search and determine risks, benefits, and costs of a variety of treatments for the management of amphetamine withdrawal., Search Strategy: Electronic searches of MEDLINE (1966 - December 2000), EMBASE (1980 - February 2001), CINAHL (1982 - January 2001) and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library 2000 issue 4) were undertaken. References to the articles obtained by any means were searched., Selection Criteria: All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were included. Participants were people with amphetamine withdrawal, diagnosed by any set of criteria. Any kinds of biological and psychological treatments both alone and combined were examined. A variety of outcomes, for example, number of treatment responders, score changes, were considered., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers evaluated and extracted the data independently. The dichotomous data were extracted on an intention-to-treat basis in which the dropouts were assigned as participants with the worst outcomes. The Relative Risk (RR) with the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was used to assess the dichotomous data. The Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) with 95% CI was used to assessed the continuous data., Main Results: The results of two studies have shown some benefits of amineptine in the treatment of amphetamine withdrawal. Those benefits can be seen in the respects of discontinuation rate and global state, as measured by Clinical Global Impression Scale. However, no direct benefit of amineptine on amphetamine withdrawal symptoms or craving was shown., Reviewer's Conclusions: The evidence about the treatment for amphetamine withdrawal is very limited. Amineptine has limited benefits on some amphetamine withdrawal symptoms. Due to a number of reports of amineptine abuse, it has been withdrawn from the market for a few years. At present, no available treatment has been demonstrated to be effective in the treatment of amphetamine withdrawal. The medications that should be considered for further treatment studies may be those with the propensities to increase dopamine, norepinephrine and/or serotonin activities of the brain. Naturalistic studies of amphetamine withdrawal symptoms and course are also crucial for the development of study designs appropriate for further treatment studies of amphetamine withdrawal.