Download PDF
Suchttherapie 2016; 17(01): 27-33
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-111762
Schwerpunktthema
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Neue Psychoaktive Substanzen (NPS) – neue Anforderungen an das Suchthilfesystem?

New Psychoactive Substances (NPS) – New Challenges for the Addiction Care System?
R. Simon
,
A. Pirona
,
L. Montanari
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
10 February 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Ziel und Methode: Informationen aus der Berichterstattung der EMCDDA und aus internationalen wissenschaftlichen Publikationen werden herangezogen, um mögliche Schäden durch „Neue psychoaktive Substanzen“ (NPS) zu beschreiben und daraus resultierende Anforderungen an das Suchthilfesystem zu diskutieren.

Ergebnisse: Während NPS als „legale Drogen“ eine Reihe rechtlicher Gemeinsamkeiten aufweisen, sind sie in Bezug auf Konsumrisiken, Konsumentengruppen und Anforderungen an die Suchthilfe recht heterogen. Interventionen müssen sich daher eher an Substanzgruppen als am Oberbegriff orientieren.

Die Prävalenz des Konsums von NPS ist insgesamt sehr niedrig, jedoch in bestimmten Gruppen deutlich erhöht. Risiken und Schäden umfassen ein weites Spektrum an somatischen und psychischen Effekten bis hin zu Todesfällen, sind aber oft mit polytoxem Konsum verbunden. Erschwerend kommt hinzu, dass die Substanz insbesondere in der Akutversorgung oft unklar und ihre Effekte und entsprechende spezifische Behandlungsansätze oft wenig erforscht sind.

Schlussfolgerungen: Unter aktuellen Bedingungen empfiehlt sich der Einsatz von Elementen guter klinischer und akutmedizinischer Praxis, angepasst an die individuellen Bedingungen und ergänzt um spezifische Elemente, wo dies möglich ist. Der schnelle Wechsel der Substanzen erfordert dabei eine Beschleunigung des Informationsflusses. Das Hilfesystem sollte hierzu noch stärker als bisher seine Kontakte zu diversen Netzwerken nutzen.

Abstract

Aims and method: Information from EMCDDA monitoring and international scientific publications are used to describe possible harms through “new psychoactive substances” (NPS) and to draw some conclusions on requests to the addiction care system resulting from that.

Results: While NPS as “legal drugs” share a number of legal communalities they are quite heterogeneous when it comes to consumption risks, user groups and request to addiction care. It might be more adequate therefore to discuss interventions on the background of substance groups instead of making reference to the generic term.

Overall the prevalence of NPS use is very low, elevated however in specific groups. While risks and harms include a wide variety of somatic and psychological effects including death cases, often multiple drug use is taking place. The situation is getting even more complicated by the fact that the substance itself, especially in emergency care, often is unclear and little evidence is available on effects and specific interventions.

Conclusions: Under given conditions it seems recommended to use elements of good clinical and emergency care practice, adapted to individual conditions and complemented with specific elements where possible. The ever changing substances require to speed up also the information flow. The system of health and social care should – even more than in the past – use its contacts to different networks for this purpose.

Schlüsselwörter:

Neue psychoaktive Substanzen - NPS - Prävalenz - Schäden - Behandlung

Key words

new psychoactive substances - NPS - prevalence - harms - treatment
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 EMCDDA, EUROPOL. New drugs in Europe 2012: EMCDDA-Europol 2012 annual report on the implementation of Council Decision 2005/387/JHA. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 2 EMCDDA. European Drug Report 2015: Trends and Developments. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Council Decision. Council Decision 2005/387/JHA of 10 May 2005 on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances. Official Journal of the European Union 20 May 2005; 127: 32-37
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Dines AM, Wood DM, Yates C et al. Acute recreational drug and new psychoactive substance toxicity in Europe: 12 months data collection from the European Drug Emergencies Network (Euro-DEN). Clin Toxicol 2015; 53: 893-900
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 King LA, Nutt DJ. Deaths from “legal highs”: a problem of definitions. Lancet 2014; 383: 952
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Sumnall HR, McVeigh J, Evans-Brown M. Epidemiology of use of novel psychoactive substances. In: Dargan PI, Wood DM. (Hrsg.) Novel psychoactive substances. Amsterdam: Academic Press; 2013
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Deluca P, Davey Z, Corazza O et al. Identifying emerging trends in recreational drug use: outcomes from the Psychonaut Web Mapping Project. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2012; 39: 221-226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 EMCDDA Understanding the ‘Spice’ phenomenon. Thematic Paper. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Brennan R, van Hout MC. GHB: A scoping review on pharmacology, toxicology, motives for use, and user groups. Journal of psychoactive drugs 2014; 46: 243-251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Brunt TM, van Amsterdam JGC, van den Brink W. GHB, GBL and 1,4-BD Addiction. Current Pharmaceutical Design 2014; 20: 4076-4085
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Morgan CJA, Curran HV. on behalf of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs (ISCD). Ketamine use: a review. Addiction 2011; 107: 27-38
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Corkerey JM, Schifano F, Ghodse AH. Phenazepam abuse in the UK: an emerging problem causing serious adverse health problems, including death. Hum psychopharmacol Clin Exp 2012; 27: 254-261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Racz J, Csak R, Toth KT et al. Veni, vidi, vici: the appearance and dominance of NPS among new participants at the largest needle exchange programme in Hungary between 2006 and 2014. Drug Alcohol Depend 2015; http://dx.doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.10.034
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Tarjan A, Budas M, Gyarmathy VA et al. Emerging risks due to new injecting patterns in Hungary during austerity times. Subst Use Misuse 2015; 50: 1-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Angerer V, Auwärter V. Monitoring of ‘legal high’ products 2013 and 2014 – key results. Toxichem Krimtech 2015; 82 (Special Issue) 224
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Pabst A, Kraus L. Gomes de Matos E et al. Substanzkonsum und substanzbezogene Störungen in Deutschland im Jahr 2012. Sucht 2013; 59: 321-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 European Commission. Flash Eurobarometer 401. Young people and drugs. Flash Eurobarometer 401. (2014). Retrieved 9.12.2015.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Werse B, Müller O. Spice, Smoke & Co. – Cannabinoidhaltige Räuchermischungen: Konsum und Konsummotivation vor dem Hintergrund sich wandelnder Gesetzgebung. Abschlussbericht. Frankfurt: Goethe-Universität. Centre for Drug Research. 2010
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Werse B, Morgenstern C, Sarvari L et al. 2013: Drogentrends in Frankfurt am Main. Frankfurt am Main: Goethe-Universität, Centre for Drug Research 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Bruno R, Matthews AJ, Dunn M et al. Emerging psychoactive substance use among regular ecstasy users in Australia. Drug Alcohol Depend 2011; 124: 19-25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hoebel J, Kamtsiuris P, Lange C et al. Kolibri Studie zum Konsum leistungsbeeinflussender Mittel in Alltag und Freizeit: Ergebnisbericht. Berlin: Robert-Koch-Institut; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Trecki J, Gerona RR, Schwarz D. Synthetic cannabinoid-related illnesses and deaths. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 103-107
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hermanns-Clausen M, Kneisel S, Szabo B et al. Acute toxicity due to the confirmed consumption of synthetic cannabinoids: clinical and laboratory findings. Addiction 2012; 108: 534-544
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Freeman MJ, Rose DZ, Myers MA et al. Ischemic stroke after use of the synthetic marijuana “spice”. Neurol 2013; 81: 2090-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Bernson-Leung ME, Leung LY, Kumar S. Synthetic Cannabis and Acute Ischemic Stroke. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases 2014; 23: 1239-1241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Livak V, Ehemann M., Pilz-Gerhardinger M et al. „Badesalz“-Psychosen – Klinische Aspekte. Sucht 2013; 59: 55-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Elliott S, Evans J. A 3-year review of new psychactive substances in casework. Forensci Sci Int 2014; 243: 55-60
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Beck O, Franzen L, Bäckberg M et al. Intoxications involving MDPV in Sweden during 2010-2014: Results from the STRIDA project. Clin Toxicol 2015; 53: 865-873
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Helander A, Bäckberg M, Hulten P et al. Detection of new psychoactive substance use among emergency room patients: results from the Swedish STRIDA project. Forensic Sci Int 2015; 243: 23-29
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 EMCDDA. Comorbidity of substance use and mental disorders in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2015.
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Abdulrahim D. Bowden-Jones O und die NEPTUNE Expert Group. Guidance on the Management of Acute and Chronic Harms of Club Drugs and Novel Psychoactive Substances. London: Novel Psychoactive Treatment UK Network (NEPTUNE); 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Werse B, Morgenstern C. Der Trend geht zur Reinsubstanz – Entwicklungen im Konsum von “Legal Highs”/NPS auf Basis zweier Online-Befragungen. Suchttherapie 2015; 16: 36-41
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar