[Ordalie, sensation-seeking and impulsivity. Critical analysis of definitions]. / Ordalie, recherche de sensations et impulsivité. Analyse critique des définitions.

BACKGROUND: In the fields of psychology and psychiatry, the use of the terms impulsivity, sensation-seeking and ordalie to refer to risk-taking behaviors can sometimes be confusing. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to establish a clinical definition of the concepts of ordalie, sensation-seeking and impulsivity, in order to analyze the similarities and differences between these concepts. METHODS: We prioritized literature review articles with or without meta-analysis from the Medline database and supplemented with the Google-Scholar database. The articles were included in this review if their objectives were in line with ours. The research was conducted in November 2018. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles were selected. There are similarities in the clinical definitions of these concepts with measurable heterogeneous constructions, and an exacerbation in adolescence for engagement in harmful behaviors, but there are also nuances that highlight their differences. CONCLUSION: We were able to describe areas of divergence and convergence between these three concepts but not to establish a quantitative diagram of the areas of divergence and convergence. It would seem that the coexistence of sensation-seeking and impulsivity in the same individual could explain that individual's involvement in ordalique behaviors. Further studies approaching this hypothesis would seem useful in terms of preventing risk-taking behaviors such as addictive behaviors.

[Which indications for inpatient admission of a patient with an addiction? Application of the chronic disorders model. A face validity study]. / Quelles indications d'hospitalisation d'un patient avec addiction ? Application du modèle des pathologies chroniques. Une étude de validité apparente.

INTRODUCTION: The medical identification of an addiction (use disorder) often results in inpatient admission with a view to its definitive suspension. However, for other chronic diseases, inpatient admission is indicated for specific situations and the objective is not the definitive suspension of the chronic disease. Our goal was to clarify addiction as a chronic disease and to determine explicit indications for inpatient admission. METHOD: Three-stage face validity study: (1) from the analysis of consensual definitions, search by the subset theory whether addiction can be considered as a chronic disease; (2) Develop generic indications for inpatient admissions based on the analysis of chronic disease care pathways validated by the HAS (French Health Agency) and apply them to addiction; (3) Validate by Delphi expert consensus method the determined indications. RESULTS: Step (1) showed that the definition of addiction allowed to include it in that of chronic disease. Step (2) determined 7 indications for inpatient admission of a patient with a chronic disease, and its application to addiction identified 15 indications for inpatient admission of a patient with addiction. In step (3), the Delphi method yielded consensus on 14 of the 15 indications. CONCLUSION: By clarifying addiction as a chronic disease, we were able to determine 14 indications for inpatient admission of a person with an addiction and to distinguish them from the long-term care of addiction. These explicit indications can help the general practitioner or community psychiatrist to better manage patients with addiction on the basis of their expertise with chronic diseases management.

[Similarities and differences between pathological gambling and substance dependance: A clarification]. / Similitudes et différences entre le jeu pathologique et la dépendance aux substances : qu'en est-il ?

UNLABELLED: Similarities and differences between pathological gambling and substance dependence: a clarification. A critical analysis of a French review of the international literature on gambling. INTRODUCTION: The integration of pathological gambling in the spectrum of addictive disorders modeled by substance dependence is currently discussed. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of the similarities and differences between pathological gambling and substance dependence, and to classify and analyze them, based on the data collected by a previously published French systematic analysis of the international literature on pathological gambling. METHOD: We established a checklist of each comparison of pathological gambling with substance dependence within the report. Then, every entry was classified as similarity or difference, analyzed and discussed. RESULTS: Similarities retrieved were epidemiological characteristics (gender, age, socio-demographic characteristics of subjects), diagnostic criteria from DSM-IV (five criteria in common), frequent co-occurrence of pathological gambling and substance dependence, neurobiological and genetic characteristics, cases of spontaneous recovery, and similarities of therapeutic care. Differences retrieved were a more elevated prevalence of mood disorders and suicide among pathological gamblers, intrinsic risk factors related to gambling activity (delay between bid and result, gambling device, big win), cognitive distortion of pathological gamblers (notably chasing), specificities of cognitive behavioral therapies focused on these cognitive distortions, and specificities of social care of pathological gamblers. DISCUSSION: Pathological gambling shared many similarities with substance dependence, but also some differences. However, our critical analysis of these elements, reported to be specific to pathological gambling, showed significant commonalities with substance dependence. Also, the existence of key symptoms of substance dependence such as craving and loss of control in pathological gambling was not discussed in the review, although other data suggest a common ground. These could be key elements to group together pathological gambling and substance dependence within the addictive disorders.

[Cannabis and psychosis: search of a causal link through a critical and systematic review]. / Cannabis et psychose: recherche d'un lien de causalité à partir d'une revue critique systématique de la littérature.

INTRODUCTION: Although cannabis use may be involved in the aetiology of acute psychosis, there has been considerable debate about the association observed between cannabis use and chronic psychosis. In particular, because of the frequent co-occurrence between schizophrenia and cannabis use, the question has been raised of a causal link between exposure to cannabis as a risk factor and the development of psychosis or psychotic symptoms. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article was to examine the evidence that cannabis use causes chronic psychotic disorders by using established criteria of causality. These criteria were defined by: biologic plausibility, strength of the interaction between the risk factor and the disease, reprieability of the results, temporal sequence between the exposure to the risk factor and the beginning of the disease and existence of a dose-effect relationship. METHODS: The selected studies were found in Medline using the keywords "cannabis" and "psychosis", "cannabis" and "schizophrenia", "cannabis" and "psychotic symptoms" and "prospective" or "cohort" or "longitudinal". The selected studies were all prospective studies assessing the temporal sequence between cannabis use and emergence of psychosis or psychotic symptoms. The search strategies resulted in 60 records that were screened by reading both titles and abstracts. Seventeen studies were considered eligible, and then, after reading the full text, seven met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Together, the seven studies were all prospective cohorts and represented 50,275 human subjects. There were three European studies (from Sweden, Holland and Germany), one from New Zealand and one from Australia. Only one study of the seven did not show a significant association between cannabis consumption and increase of the risk of developing a psychosis. However, this study had some bias, such as low level of cannabis use and the lack of evaluation of cannabis use after inclusion. For the six other studies, data show the existence of a significant association between cannabis use and psychotic disorders (with an increased risk between 1.2 and 2.8 in Zammit et al.'s study), particularly among vulnerable individuals (that is with a prepsychotic state at the time of inclusion). Therefore, all the studies that assessed a dose-effect relationship showed this link between cannabis use and the emergence of psychosis or psychotic symptoms. The fact that all causal criteria were present in the studies suggests that cannabis use may be an independent risk factor for the development of psychosis. Results seem to be more consistent for vulnerable individuals with the hypothesis that cannabis use may precipitate psychosis, notably among vulnerable subjects. In particular, early onset of cannabis use during adolescence should be an environmental stressor that interacts with a genetic predisposition to induce a psychotic disorder. CONCLUSION: The objective of this article was to examine whether cannabis use can be an independent risk factor for chronic psychotic disorders, by using established criteria of causality. Data extracted from the selected studies showed that cannabis use may be an independent risk factor for the development of psychotic disorders. Early screening of the vulnerability to psychotic disorder should permit improved focus on prevention and information about the specific risks related to cannabis use among this population.

Why buprenorphine is so successful in treating opiate addiction in France.

In France, all registered medical doctors have been allowed to prescribe buprenorphine without any special education or licensing since 1995. This has led to a rapidly increasing number of opiate-dependent users under buprenorphine treatment in primary care. French physician compensation mechanisms, pharmacy services, and medical insurance funding all have contributed to minimizing barriers to buprenorphine treatment. Approximately 20% of all physicians in France are prescribing buprenorphine to treat more than one half of the estimated 180,000 problem heroin users. Intravenous diversion of buprenorphine may occur in up to 20% of buprenorphine patients and has led to relatively rare overdoses in combination with sedatives, whereas total opiate overdose deaths have declined substantially. In France, buprenorphine maintenance treatment for problem opiate users was feasible and safe through office-based prescriptions in a relaxed regulatory environment.

Pharmacological interventions for benzodiazepine mono-dependence management in outpatient settings.

BACKGROUND: The improved safety profile of benzodiazepines compared to barbiturates has contributed to a high rate of prescription since the seventies. Although benzodiazepines are highly effective for some disorders, they are potentially addictive drugs and they can provide reinforcement in some individuals. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for benzodiazepine mono-dependence. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group' Register of Trials (October 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2004), EMBASE (January 1988 to October 2004), PsycInfo (1985 to October 2004), CINAHL (1982 to October 2004), Pascal, Toxibase, reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials of benzodiazepines dependence management regardless of type, dose (daily and total) and duration of benzodiazepine treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Reviewers independently assessed trials for inclusion, rated their methodological quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials involving 458 participants were included. The studies included could not be analysed cumulatively because of heterogeneity of inteventions and participants' characteristics. Results support the policy of gradual rather than abrupt withdrawal of benzodiazepine. Progressive withdrawal (over 10 weeks) appeared preferable if compared to abrupt since the number of drop-outs was less important and the procedure judged more favourable by the participants. Short half-life benzodiazepine, associated with higher drop-out rates, did not have higher withdrawal symptoms scores. Switching from short half-life benzodiazepine to long half-life benzodiazepine before gradual taper withdrawal did not receive much support from this review. The role of propanolol in benzodiazepine withdrawal was unclear; adding tricyclic antidepressant (dothiepin) decreased the intensity of withdrawal symptoms but did not increase the rate of benzodiazepine abstinence at the end of the trial. Buspirone and Progesterone failed to suppress any benzodiazepine symptoms. Carbamazepine might have promise as an adjunctive medication for benzodiazepine withdrawal, particularly in patients receiving benzodiazepines in daily dosages of 20 mg/d or more of diazepam (or equivalents). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review point to the potential value of carbamazepine as an effective intervention for benzodiazepine gradual taper discontinuation. Carbamazepine has shown rather modest benefit in reducing withdrawal severity, although it did significantly improve drug-free outcome. Larger controlled studies are needed to confirm these benefits, to assess adverse effects and to identify when its clinical use might be most indicated. Other suggested treatment approaches to benzodiazepine discontinuation management should be explored (antidepressants, benzodiazepine receptors modulator).

Psychotherapeutic interventions for cannabis abuse and/or dependence in outpatient settings.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use disorder is the most common illicit substance use disorder in general population. Despite that, only a minority seek assistance from a health professional, but the demand for treatment is now increasing internationally. Trials of treatment have been published but to our knowledge, there is no published systematic review . OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for cannabis abuse or dependence. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL) The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2004; MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2004), PsycInfo (1985 to October 2004), CINAHL (1982 to October 2004), Toxibase (until September 2004) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled studies examining a psychotherapeutic intervention for cannabis dependence or abuse in comparison with a delayed-treatment control group or combinations of psychotherapeutic interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data MAIN RESULTS: Six trials involving 1297 people were included. Five studies took place in the United States, one in Australia. Studies were not pooled in meta-analysis because of heterogeneity. The six included studies suggested that counseling approaches might have beneficial effects for the treatment of cannabis dependence. Group and individual sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) had both efficacy for the treatment of cannabis dependence and associated problems, CBT produced better outcomes than a brief intervention when CBT was delivered in individual sessions. Two studies suggested that adding voucher-based incentives may enhance treatment when used in combination with other effective psychotherapeutic interventions. Abstinence rates were relatively small overall but favored the individual CBT 9-session (or more) condition. All included trials reported a statistically significant reductions in frequency of cannabis use and dependence symptoms. But other measures of problems related to cannabis use were not consistently different. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The included studies were too heterogenous and could not allow to draw up a clear conclusion. The studies comparing different therapeutic modalities raise important questions about the duration, intensity and type of treatment. The generalizability of findings is also unknown because the studies have been conducted in a limited number of localities with fairly homogenous samples of treatment seekers. However, the low abstinence rate indicated that cannabis dependence is not easily treated by psychotherapies in outpatient settings.