4.0 Article

Dermatological aspects of synthetic cannabinoid addiction

期刊

CUTANEOUS AND OCULAR TOXICOLOGY
卷 36, 期 2, 页码 125-131

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/15569527.2016.1169541

关键词

Dermatology; mucocutaneous findings; synthetic cannabinoid; substance addiction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: Synthetic cannabinoids (SCs) have recently become one of the most abused substances among young population and have caused severe health consequences in our country and worldwide.Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate sociodemographic and dermatological findings in SC addicts.Materials and methods: A total of 136 SC users who applied to our hospital's Substance Dependence Center outpatient clinic and diagnosed with drug addiction according to DSM-4 criteria between September 2014 and September 2015 were enrolled to our study. Patients were evaluated by dermatologist and psychiatrist with sociodemographic and clinical data sheets. Data were obtained by direct conversation with patients, clinical examination findings, and laboratory tests, if necessary.Results: Of 136 patients, 12 (8.8%) were female and 124 (91.2%) were male, aged between 17 and 53 with mean age of 25.89.2. Most common use way of SC was smoking and patients majorly used opiates before SC. The majority of the patients enrolled to our study were low-educated and almost 50% did not have a regular job. The most frequent dermatologic complaints were periorbital darkening, hallowed-cheeks and premature aging, hair loss and gray hair, and acnes, whereas most frequent dermatologic examination findings were artifact lesions such as blade scars and tobacco scars-stains, tattoos, and acnes.Discussion and conclusions: Given the increased prevalence of SC use in our country and around the world, dermatologists should continue to familiarize themselves with the common mucocutaneous markers of this substance use. Awareness of signs of SCs use will facilitate earlier diagnose, intervention, and directed treatment.

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

4.0
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