4.2 Article

Severe toxicity due to injected but not oral or nasal abuse of methylphenidate tablets

期刊

SWISS MEDICAL WEEKLY
卷 141, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

E M H SWISS MEDICAL PUBLISHERS LTD
DOI: 10.4414/smw.2011.13267

关键词

methylphenidate; intoxication; abuse; misuse

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Non-medical use of methylphenidate is increasing. Little is known about potential acute medical complications associated with recreational use of methylphenidate. STUDY AIM: To identify medical problems associated with methylphenidate abuse. METHODS: Retrospective case series of methylphenidate abuse cases presenting to an inner city emergency department. RESULTS: We identified 14 cases of methylphenidate abuse between 2003 and 2010. Ten of these patients abused methylphenidate alone while four co-ingested other drugs, mainly alcohol. The route of ingestion was oral in nine patients, nasal in one and intravascular in four. Severe toxicity was exclusively observed in users who injected the drug. Two cases involved accidental intra-arterial injection and resulted in tissue necrosis leading to the amputation of a forearm and of fingertips, respectively. Clinical findings in the non-serious cases included mild to moderate symptoms and signs of sympathetic nervous stimulation such as agitation, tachycardia, hypertension, anxiety, hallucination, headache, tremor and dizziness. Nine of the fourteen patients were taking methylphenidate as a prescribed drug. Eight patients were former or current multiple substance abusers. CONCLUSION: Methylphenidate misuse is not a significant burden for emergency departments in Switzerland. Oral and nasal administration of methylphenidate did not result in severe toxicity. However, injection of crushed methylphenidate pills lead to serious local toxicity. Most patients with methylphenidate abuse had a prescription for the drug indicating deviation from medical use. A history of multiple substance use may be a risk factor for non-medical use of methylphenidate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据