MARRIED-cocaine score: validating a tool for detecting the risk of ED revisit in cocaine users

Screening for harmful substance use in emergency departments: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Substance use-related emergency department (ED) visits have increased substantially in North America. Screening for substance use in EDs is recommended; best approaches are unclear. This systematic review synthesizes evidence on diagnostic accuracy of ED screening tools to detect harmful substance use.

METHODS

We included derivation or validation studies, with or without comparator, that included adult (≥ 18 years) ED patients and evaluated screening tools to identify general or specific substance use disorders or harmful use. Our search strategy combined concepts Emergency Department AND Screening AND Substance Use. Trained reviewers assessed title/abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (QUADAS-2) independently and in duplicate. Reviewers resolved disagreements by discussion. Primary investigators adjudicated if necessary. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. We descriptively summarized results.

RESULTS

Our search strategy yielded 2696 studies; we included 33. Twenty-one (64%) evaluated a North American population. Fourteen (42%) applied screening among general ED patients. Screening tools were administered by research staff (n = 21), self-administered by patients (n = 10), or non-research healthcare providers (n = 1). Most studies evaluated alcohol use screens (n = 26), most commonly the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; n = 14), Cut down/Annoyed/Guilty/Eye-opener (CAGE; n = 13), and Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS/RAPS4/RAPS4-QF; n = 12). Four studies assessing six tools and screening thresholds for alcohol abuse/dependence in North American patients (AUDIT ≥ 8; CAGE ≥ 2; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition [DSM-IV-2] ≥ 1; RAPS ≥ 1; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [NIAAA]; Tolerance/Worry/Eye-opener/Amnesia/K-Cut down [TWEAK] ≥ 3) reported both sensitivities and specificities ≥ 83%. Two studies evaluating a single alcohol screening question (SASQ) (When was the last time you had more than X drinks in 1 day?, X = 4 for women; X = 5 for men) reported sensitivities 82-85% and specificities 70-77%. Five evaluated screening tools for general substance abuse/dependence (Relax/Alone/Friends/Family/Trouble [RAFFT] ≥ 3, Drug Abuse Screening Test [DAST] ≥ 4, single drug screening question, Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test [ASSIST] ≥ 42/18), reporting sensitivities 64%-90% and specificities 61%-100%. Studies' risk of bias were mostly high or uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS

Six screening tools demonstrated both sensitivities and specificities ≥ 83% for detecting alcohol abuse/dependence in EDs. Tools with the highest sensitivities (AUDIT ≥ 8; RAPS ≥ 1) and that prioritize simplicity and efficiency (SASQ) should be prioritized.

Epidemiology, clinical features and management of patients presenting to European emergency departments with acute cocaine toxicity: comparison between powder cocaine and crack cocaine cases

Objective: To analyse the epidemiology, clinical picture and emergency department (ED) management of a large series of patients who presented to European EDs after cocaine consumption, comparing data from powder (C₁ group) and crack (C₂ group) consumers. Methods: Between October 2013 and December 2016, the Euro-DEN Plus Registry recorded 17,371 consecutive acute recreational drug toxicity presentations to 22 EDs in 14 European countries. Epidemiological and demographic data, co-ingestion of alcohol and other drugs, clinical features, ED management and outcome (death) were analysed for cocaine cases, and comparison of clinical picture in C₁ and C₂ patients were performed adjusting for alcohol and other drug co-ingestion. Results: We included 3002 cases (C₁: 2600; C₂: 376; mixed consumption: 26): mean age 32(9) years, 23% female. The proportion of presentations involving cocaine varied significantly between countries (>30% in Malta, Spain, France, Denmark) and only centres in France, United Kingdom, Poland, Ireland and Malta recorded crack-related cases. Cocaine was frequently used with ethanol (74.3%, C₁>C₂) and other drugs (56.8%, C₂>C₁), the most frequent amphetamine (19.4%, C₁>C₂) and opioids (18.9%, C₂>C₁). C₂ patients were more likely to have clinically significant episodes of hypotension (adjusted OR = 2.35; 95%CI = 1.42-3.89), and bradypnea (1.81; 1.03-3.16) and systolic blood pressure >180 mmHg on ED arrival (2.59; 1.28-5.25); while less likely anxiety (0.51; 0.38-0.70), chest pain (0.47; 0.31-0.70), palpitations (0.57; 0.38-0.84), vomiting (0.54; 0.32-0.90), and tachycardia on ED arrival (0.52; 0.39-0.67). Sedative drugs were given in 29.3%. The median length of hospital stay was 4:02 h, 22.1% patients were hospitalized, and 0.4% (n = 12) died. Conclusion: Cocaine is commonly involved in European ED presentations with acute recreational drug toxicity, but there is variation across Europe not just in the involvement of cocaine but in the proportion related to powder versus crack. Some differences in clinical picture and ED management exist between powder cocaine and crack consumers.