DOCSLIB.ORG

A Comprehensive Review of MDMA and GHB: Two Common Club Drugs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Comprehensive Review of MDMA and GHB: Two Common Club Drugs R EVIEWS _ F T HERAPEUTICS A Comprehensive Review of MDMA and GHB: Two Common Club Drugs Christian J. Teter, Pharm.D., and Sally K. Guthrie, Pharm.D., FCCP “Club drugs” have become alarmingly popular. The use of 3,4- methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, Ecstasy) and g-hydroxybutyrate (GHB), in particular, has increased dramatically from 1997–1999. The pharmacokinetics of MDMA and GHB appear to be nonlinear, making it difficult to estimate a dose-response relationship. The drug MDMA is an amphetamine analog with sympathomimetic properties, whereas GHB is a g- aminobutyric acid analog with sedative properties. Symptoms of an MDMA toxic reaction include tachycardia, sweating, and hyperthermia. Occasional severe sequelae include disseminated intravascular coagulation, rhabdomyolysis, and acute renal failure. Treatment includes lowering the body temperature and maintaining adequate hydration. Symptoms of GHB intoxication include coma, respiratory depression, unusual movements, confusion, amnesia, and vomiting. Treatment includes cardiac and respiratory support. Because of the popularity of these agents and their potentially dangerous effects, health care professionals must be familiar with these substances and the treatment options for patients who present with symptoms of a toxic reaction. (Pharmacotherapy 2001;21(12):1486–1513) OUTLINE GHB MDMA History History Availability Availability Pharmacokinetics Chemistry Pharmacology Pharmacokinetics Therapeutic Applications Pharmacology Adverse Effects and Acute Toxic Reactions Compound Lethality Treatment Preclinical Neurotoxic Reactions Conclusion Clinical Neurotoxic Reactions The increase in the popularity of a socially Subjective Effects designated class of drugs known as “club drugs” Pharmacologic Pretreatment has been alarming. These drugs acquired this Adverse Effects and Acute Toxic Reactions label because they are used most often at all- Treatment night dance parties known as “raves” or in dance Summary clubs and bars. Drugs commonly included in From the College of Pharmacy, the University of this group are 3,4-methylenedioxymetham- Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (both authors). phetamine (MDMA, “Ecstasy”), g-hydroxybutyrate Address reprint requests to Christian J. Teter, Pharm.D., College of Pharmacy, the University of Michigan, 428 (GHB), flunitrazepam (“Roofies”), ketamine, Church Street, Room 4017, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1065; e- methamphetamine, and lysergic acid diethyl- mail: [email protected]. amide (LSD). Many of these drugs are colorless, MDMA AND GHB, TWO COMMON CLUB DRUGS Teter and Guthrie 1487 tasteless, and odorless and can be placed covertly report,3 emergency department episodes into beverages. Therefore, some of these drugs, significantly increased for MDMA (p<0.01), GHB in particular GHB and flunitrazepam, have been (p<0.01), and ketamine (p<0.05) from used to intoxicate or sedate unsuspecting 1994–1999. These increases were especially individuals to facilitate sexual assault and have dramatic from 1997–1999 for MDMA and GHB been given the name “date rape” drugs.1 (Figures 1 and 2). Apparent increases in the use Epidemiologic studies have shown that use of of flunitrazepam over the same time period were club drugs is on the rise.2, 3 According to the not statistically significant. Methamphetamine Monitoring the Future Study,2 the use of MDMA and LSD account for the largest number of has risen sharply over the last couple of years. In emergency department “mentions” in this report 2000, 8.2% of 12th graders reported taking overall; however, mentions of methamphetamine MDMA in the prior 12 months, an increase from dropped significantly from 1994–1999, whereas 5.6% in 1999. Use also increased markedly mentions of LSD remained stable over these 6 among American college students, from 0.5% in years. (A mention refers to a specific substance 1994 to 5.5% in 1999. According to the principal that was mentioned in a drug abuse episode.) investigator for the Monitoring the Future Study, The use of these drugs poses a serious public two reasons explain why MDMA use may still be health problem, and health care professionals on the rise despite a great deal of attention in the need to be familiar with these substances. media. First, young people may not yet see MDMA as a dangerous drug. Second, the MDMA perceived availability of MDMA has increased dramatically. By 2000, 51% of 12th graders History stated that they could buy MDMA fairly or very The drug MDMA (Ecstasy, “E”) is a ring- easily. The same study reported that the substituted amphetamine analog commonly prevalence rates of GHB and ketamine use are taken as a recreational drug of abuse. It was 1–2.5% in grades 8, 10, and 12. Ketamine and synthesized in 1912 by Merck Pharmaceuticals GHB were added to the ongoing Monitoring the and patented in 1914.4 However, MDMA did not Future Study in 2000, so it is not possible to become popular until the 1970s when it was obtain usage trends for these drugs. The use of promoted as a useful adjunct to psychotherapy. flunitrazepam, crystal methamphetamine, and It allegedly improved self-esteem and enhanced LSD has actually declined from peak levels in the communication within significant emotional mid-1990s through 2000. relationships.5 Therapeutic applications for The increase in the use of club drugs has been observed by medical care providers. According to the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) 3000 2500 3000 2000 2500 2000 1500 1500 1000 1000 500 500 of Emergency Department Mentions of GHB No. No. of Emergency Department Mentions of MDMA No. 0 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Year Year Figure 1. Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) statistics Figure 2. Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) statistics of the number of emergency department mentions of 3,4- of the number of emergency department mentions of g- methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) from hydroxybutyrate (GHB) from 1994–1999. (From reference 1994–1999. (From reference 3.) 3.) 1488 PHARMACOTHERAPY Volume 21, Number 12, 2001 MDMA were not well established, however, and users of MDMA to control their dose. Larger- the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) than-expected doses of MDMA may be taken classified MDMA as a schedule I drug in 1985 accidentally, leading to adverse effects.11 after its recreational use became more widespread Furthermore, because of the variety of substances and publicized.6 It also was shown that 3,4- that may be found in any given MDMA tablet, the methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), an analog clinical presentation of acute intoxication may and metabolite of MDMA, had a neurotoxic effect vary significantly. in animals.7 Chemistry Availability The chemical designation of MDMA is N- The drug MDMA is commonly distributed as methyl-1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)-2- small tablets, capsules, or white powder. Ecstasy aminopropane (Figure 3). Structurally it tablets may contain various chemicals other than resembles both the stimulant amphetamine and pure MDMA, including MDA, 3,4-methylene- the hallucinogen mescaline.12 The drug MDMA dioxyethylamphetamine (MDEA), caffeine, is optically active, with the dextrorotatory isomer dextromethorphan, ephedrine, phenyl- (S+) having higher central activity than the propanolamine, methamphetamine, ampheta- levorotatory isomer.4, 13 mine, diphenhydramine, ketamine, cocaine, and diazepam. Some have contained no active drugs Pharmacokinetics at all.8 Results of analyses of tablets from all over the United Kingdom, given to the Leeds Pharmacokinetic Parameters Addiction Unit, confirm that there are many The pharmacokinetics of MDMA after oral ingredients in Ecstasy tablets other than MDMA.9 ingestion have been studied by various In another report, MDMA concentrations in 25 researchers.14–17 The time to maximum tablets varied 70-fold, and 9 of the tablets did not concentration (Tmax) is 2 hours after oral contain either MDMA or any related MDMA ingestion of MDMA 50, 75, or 125 mg.14–17 The analog.10 Furthermore, MDMA tablets collected half-life shows little variation after a wide range by the Haight Ashbury Free Medical Clinic of doses. After a 50-, 75-, or 125-mg dose, the contained from 16–150 mg of MDMA/tablet. half-life is 8 hours.16, 17 Other studies found the Owing to the great variability in the dose of half-life to be 9.53 hours after a 75-mg dose and MDMA in any given tablet, it is very difficult for 9.12 hours after a 125-mg dose.14 The maximum Figure 3. Mechanism of MDMA elimination. The parent compound MDMA and its metabolites are excreted in the urine to varying degrees (see text). Also, MDMA may be metabolized by ring hydroxylation and demethylenation to potential serotonergic neurotoxins. MDMA AND GHB, TWO COMMON CLUB DRUGS Teter and Guthrie 1489 19 concentration (Cmax) after oral ingestion appears methyl-a-methyldopamine). The metabolite to be dose dependent. A Cmax of 105.6 ng/ml was DHMA is the major metabolite of MDMA in rat reported in a single subject who took a 50-mg liver19, 20 and in rat brain microsomes.21 16 dose, whereas a Cmax of 330 ng/ml was found in Microsomes from yeast expressing human another subject who took MDMA 135 mg.18 In a CYP2D6 demethylenate MDMA to the metabolite 22, 23 group of eight subjects, the Cmax values after DHMA. ingestion of MDMA 75 mg and 125 mg were Furthermore, using human liver microsomes, 126.5 and 226.3 ng/ml, respectively,14 whereas in CYP2D6 is the primary isoenzyme responsible 24 another group of eight subjects, Cmax values of for the demethylenation of MDMA. If CYP2D6 130.9 ng/ml and 236.4 ng/ml were obtained after is the isoenzyme responsible for the majority of ingestion of MDMA 75 mg and 125 mg, MDMA metabolism in humans, then poor 17 respectively. In these studies, the Cmax exhibits metabolizers could be sensitive to the acute a slightly greater-than-expected increase physiologic effects of MDMA, but less prone to compared with the increase in dose. According any long-term toxic effects of MDMA arising to these observations, after the usual recreational from metabolites.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Substance Use Resources for Grades 7-12
    1 Substance Use Resources for Grades 7-12 Online Resource Library Search: https://www.voa-dakotas.org/resource-library Addiction: page 1 Alcohol: page 1 Drugs: page 4 Vaping/tobacco: page 10 Addiction Addiction and the Human Brain o DVD, 2006, HRM, 27 minutes, Grades 7-12 o Drug addiction is a disease of the brain and teens are at highest risk for acquiring this disease. This DVD explains the changes to the brain caused by prolonged use of drugs and shows why voluntary drug use eventually becomes involuntary and compulsive. Studies indicate that drugs affect the developing brain more than the brain of someone more mature, thus putting teens at a higher risk of addiction. Interviews with recovering teen addicts, an addiction counselor, and brain experts and researchers provide sobering considerations to viewers. Pre- and Post-tests are included. How Addiction Hijacks the Brain o DVD, 2016, HRM, CC, 24 minutes, Grades 7-College o This film drives home the message that drug and alcohol addiction are a disease of the brain and that teens are at highest risk for acquiring this disease. Leading scientists detail how drugs like heroin, nicotine, cocaine and marijuana change the brain, subvert the way it registers pleasure, and corrupt learning and motivation. Young recovering addicts provide a human face to the effects of drugs and alcohol as they describe how addiction involves intense craving for a drug and loss of control over its use. Viewers also learn that the brain’s plasticity, or ability to change, offers hope for addicts that they can turn their lives around.
    [Show full text]
  • (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2006/0110428A1 De Juan Et Al
    US 200601 10428A1 (19) United States (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2006/0110428A1 de Juan et al. (43) Pub. Date: May 25, 2006 (54) METHODS AND DEVICES FOR THE Publication Classification TREATMENT OF OCULAR CONDITIONS (51) Int. Cl. (76) Inventors: Eugene de Juan, LaCanada, CA (US); A6F 2/00 (2006.01) Signe E. Varner, Los Angeles, CA (52) U.S. Cl. .............................................................. 424/427 (US); Laurie R. Lawin, New Brighton, MN (US) (57) ABSTRACT Correspondence Address: Featured is a method for instilling one or more bioactive SCOTT PRIBNOW agents into ocular tissue within an eye of a patient for the Kagan Binder, PLLC treatment of an ocular condition, the method comprising Suite 200 concurrently using at least two of the following bioactive 221 Main Street North agent delivery methods (A)-(C): Stillwater, MN 55082 (US) (A) implanting a Sustained release delivery device com (21) Appl. No.: 11/175,850 prising one or more bioactive agents in a posterior region of the eye so that it delivers the one or more (22) Filed: Jul. 5, 2005 bioactive agents into the vitreous humor of the eye; (B) instilling (e.g., injecting or implanting) one or more Related U.S. Application Data bioactive agents Subretinally; and (60) Provisional application No. 60/585,236, filed on Jul. (C) instilling (e.g., injecting or delivering by ocular ion 2, 2004. Provisional application No. 60/669,701, filed tophoresis) one or more bioactive agents into the Vit on Apr. 8, 2005. reous humor of the eye. Patent Application Publication May 25, 2006 Sheet 1 of 22 US 2006/0110428A1 R 2 2 C.6 Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • (19) United States (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub
    US 20130289061A1 (19) United States (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2013/0289061 A1 Bhide et al. (43) Pub. Date: Oct. 31, 2013 (54) METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS TO Publication Classi?cation PREVENT ADDICTION (51) Int. Cl. (71) Applicant: The General Hospital Corporation, A61K 31/485 (2006-01) Boston’ MA (Us) A61K 31/4458 (2006.01) (52) U.S. Cl. (72) Inventors: Pradeep G. Bhide; Peabody, MA (US); CPC """"" " A61K31/485 (201301); ‘4161223011? Jmm‘“ Zhu’ Ansm’ MA. (Us); USPC ......... .. 514/282; 514/317; 514/654; 514/618; Thomas J. Spencer; Carhsle; MA (US); 514/279 Joseph Biederman; Brookline; MA (Us) (57) ABSTRACT Disclosed herein is a method of reducing or preventing the development of aversion to a CNS stimulant in a subject (21) App1_ NO_; 13/924,815 comprising; administering a therapeutic amount of the neu rological stimulant and administering an antagonist of the kappa opioid receptor; to thereby reduce or prevent the devel - . opment of aversion to the CNS stimulant in the subject. Also (22) Flled' Jun‘ 24’ 2013 disclosed is a method of reducing or preventing the develop ment of addiction to a CNS stimulant in a subj ect; comprising; _ _ administering the CNS stimulant and administering a mu Related U‘s‘ Apphcatlon Data opioid receptor antagonist to thereby reduce or prevent the (63) Continuation of application NO 13/389,959, ?led on development of addiction to the CNS stimulant in the subject. Apt 27’ 2012’ ?led as application NO_ PCT/US2010/ Also disclosed are pharmaceutical compositions comprising 045486 on Aug' 13 2010' a central nervous system stimulant and an opioid receptor ’ antagonist.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Union Reference Dates A
    Active substance name (INN) EU DLP BfArM / BAH DLP yearly PSUR 6-month-PSUR yearly PSUR bis DLP (List of Union PSUR Submission Reference Dates and Frequency (List of Union Frequency of Reference Dates and submission of Periodic Frequency of submission of Safety Update Reports, Periodic Safety Update 30 Nov. 2012) Reports, 30 Nov.
    [Show full text]
  • 211230Orig1s000 211230Orig2s000
    CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH APPLICATION NUMBER: 211230Orig1s000 211230Orig2s000 RISK ASSESSMENT and RISK MITIGATION REVIEW(S) Division of Risk Management (DRISK) Office of Medication Error Prevention and Risk Management (OMEPRM) Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology (OSE) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Application Type NDA Application Number 211230 PDUFA Goal Date December 20, 2018 OSE RCM # 2018‐1313 Reviewer Name(s) Naomi Redd, Pharm.D. Team Leader Elizabeth Everhart, RN, MSN, ACNP Division Director Cynthia LaCivita, Pharm.D. Review Completion Date September 25, 2018 Subject Evaluation of the Need for a REMS Established Name Solriamfetol Trade Name Sunosi Name of Applicant Jazz Pharmaceuticals Therapeutic class Dopamine and Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitor (DNRI) Formulation 75 mg, 150 mg (b) (4) oral tablets Dosing Regimen Take one tablet once daily upon awakening 1 Reference ID: 4327439 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 2 Background ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Product Information ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Methylphenidate Versus Dexamphetamine in Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: a Double-Blind, Crossover Trial
    Methylphenidate Versus Dexamphetamine in Children With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Double-blind, Crossover Trial Daryl Efron, FRACP; Frederick Jarman, FRACP; and Melinda Barker, Grad Dip Ed Psych ABSTRACT. Objective. To compare methylphenidate behavioral, academic, and social functioning. Many (MPH) and dexamphetamine (DEX) in a sample of chil- well-designed, placebo-controlled studies have dem- dren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder onstrated beyond doubt the benefits of stimulants in (ADHD). the vast majority of children with ADHD.2–4 In a Method. A total of 125 children with ADHD received review of 110 studies on the effects of stimulant both MPH (0.3 mg/kg twice daily) and DEX (0.15 mg/kg drugs on more than 4200 children with ADHD, twice daily) for 2 weeks a double-blind, crossover study. 4 ; Outcome measures were Conners’ Parent Rating Scale– Barkley found that 75% of subjects were regarded Revised, Conners’ Teacher Rating Scale–Revised, a Par- as improved on stimulants. The mean placebo re- ent Global Perceptions questionnaire, the Continuous sponse was 39%. Performance Test, and the Barkley Side Effects Rating Methylphenidate (MPH) and dexamphetamine Scale. (DEX) are the two stimulants prescribed most fre- Results. There were significant group mean im- quently and have been shown to have similar types provements from baseline score on all measures for of positive effects in children with ADHD. However, both stimulants. On the Conners’ Teacher Rating Scal- it is not known whether one is more efficacious than e–Revised, response was greater on MPH than DEX on the other in terms of probability of producing a the conduct problems and hyperactivity factors, as well positive response, magnitude of response, quality of as on the hyperactivity index.
    [Show full text]
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology of Amphetamine and Related Designer Drugs
    Pharmacology and Toxicology of Amphetamine and Related Designer Drugs U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES • Public Health Service • Alcohol Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration Pharmacology and Toxicology of Amphetamine and Related Designer Drugs Editors: Khursheed Asghar, Ph.D. Division of Preclinical Research National Institute on Drug Abuse Errol De Souza, Ph.D. Addiction Research Center National Institute on Drug Abuse NIDA Research Monograph 94 1989 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration National Institute on Drug Abuse 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20857 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC 20402 Pharmacology and Toxicology of Amphetamine and Related Designer Drugs ACKNOWLEDGMENT This monograph is based upon papers and discussion from a technical review on pharmacology and toxicology of amphetamine and related designer drugs that took place on August 2 through 4, 1988, in Bethesda, MD. The review meeting was sponsored by the Biomedical Branch, Division of Preclinical Research, and the Addiction Research Center, National Institute on Drug Abuse. COPYRIGHT STATUS The National Institute on Drug Abuse has obtained permission from the copyright holders to reproduce certain previously published material as noted in the text. Further reproduction of this copyrighted material is permitted only as part of a reprinting of the entire publication or chapter. For any other use, the copyright holder’s permission is required. All other matieral in this volume except quoted passages from copyrighted sources is in the public domain and may be used or reproduced without permission from the Institute or the authors.
    [Show full text]
  • Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
    Reprint as at 1 July 2014 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 Public Act 1975 No 116 Date of assent 10 October 1975 Commencement see section 1(2) Contents Page Title 4 1 Short Title and commencement 4 2 Interpretation 4 3 Act to bind the Crown 9 3A Classification of drugs 9 4 Amendment of schedules that identify controlled drugs 10 and precursor substances, and set amount, level, or quantity at and over which controlled drugs are presumed to be for supply 4A Procedure for bringing Order in Council made under 12 section 4(1) or (1B) into force 4B Matters to which Minister must have regard before 13 recommending Order in Council under section 4(1) or (1B) 4C Temporary class drug notice [Repealed] 14 4D Effect of temporary class drug notice [Repealed] 15 4E Duration of temporary class drug notice [Repealed] 15 Note Changes authorised by subpart 2 of Part 2 of the Legislation Act 2012 have been made in this official reprint. Note 4 at the end of this reprint provides a list of the amendments incorporated. This Act is administered by the Ministry of Health. 1 Reprinted as at Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 1 July 2014 5 Advisory and technical committees 15 5AA Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs 15 5A Approved laboratories 17 5B Functions of Minister 17 6 Dealing with controlled drugs 18 7 Possession and use of controlled drugs 20 8 Exemptions from sections 6 and 7 22 9 Cultivation of prohibited plants 26 10 Aiding offences against corresponding law of another 27 country 11 Theft, etc, of controlled drugs 28 12 Use of premises or vehicle, etc 29 12A Equipment,
    [Show full text]
  • Epidemic of Prescription Drug Overdose in Ohio
    EPIDEMIC OF PRESCRIPTION There were more deaths in 2008 and 2009 in Ohio from D RUG OVERDOSE IN OHIO unintentional drug overdose than from DID YOU KNOW? motor vehicle In 2007, unintentional drug poisoning became the leading crashes! cause of injury death in Ohio, surpassing motor vehicle crashes and suicide for the first time on record. This trend continued in 2009. (See Figure 1) Among the leading causes of injury death (see below), unintentional poisonings increased from the cause of the fewest number of annual deaths in 1999 (369 deaths) to the greatest in 2009 (1,817).i (See Figure 2) From 1999 to 2009, Ohio’s death rate due to unintentional drug poisonings increased 335 percent, and the increase in deaths has been driven largely by prescription drug overdoses. In Ohio, there were 327 fatal unintentional drug overdoses in 1999 growing to 1,423 annual deaths in 2009. On average, from 2006 to 2009, approximately four people died each day in Ohio due to drug overdose.v Figure 1. Number of deaths from MV traffic Figure 2 . Percent change in the number of deaths for and unintentional drug poisonings by year, the leading causes of injury, Ohio 1999-20091,2 Ohio, 2000-20091,2 1800 all unintentional 39% 1600 firearm related 15% 1400 1200 homicide 34% 1000 unintentional suicide 17% 800 poisoning 600 unintentional poisoning 301% unt MV traffic Number of deathsNumber 400 unt MV traffic -31% 200 unintentional falls 100% 0 -100% 0% 100% 200% 300% 400% Percent change from 2000-2009 Year 1Source: Ohio Department of Health, Office of Vital Statistics; 2 Unintentional Poisoning includes non-drug and drug-related poisoning.
    [Show full text]
  • Amphetamine/Dextroamphetamine IR Generic
    GEORGIA MEDICAID FEE-FOR-SERVICE STIMULANT AND RELATED AGENTS PA SUMMARY Preferred Non-Preferred Amphetamine/dextroamphetamine IR generic Adzenys ER (amphetamine ER oral suspension) Armodafinil generic Adzenys XR (amphetamine ER dispersible tab) Atomoxetine generic Amphetamine/dextroamphetamine ER (generic Concerta (methylphenidate ER/SA) Adderall XR) Dextroamphetamine IR tablets generic Aptensio XR (methylphenidate ER) Focalin (dexmethylphenidate) Clonidine ER generic Focalin XR (dexmethylphenidate ER) Cotempla XR (methylphenidate ER disintegrating Guanfacine ER generic tablet) Methylin oral solution (methylphenidate) Daytrana (methylphenidate TD patch) Methylphenidate CD/CR/ER generic by Lannett Desoxyn (methamphetamine) [NDCs 00527-####-##] and Kremers Urban [NDCs Dexmethylphenidate IR generic 62175-####-##] (generic Metadate CD) Dexmethylphenidate ER generic Methylphenidate IR generic Dextroamphetamine ER capsules generic Modafinil generic Dextroamphetamine oral solution generic Quillichew ER (methylphenidate ER chew tabs) Dyanavel XR (amphetamine ER oral suspension) Quillivant XR (methylphenidate ER oral suspension) Evekeo (amphetamine tablets) Vyvanse (lisdexamfetamine) Methamphetamine generic Zenzedi 5 mg, 10 mg IR tablets (dextroamphetamine) Methylphenidate IR chewable tablets generic Methylphenidate ER/SA (generic Concerta) Methylphenidate ER/LA/SR (generic Ritalin LA, Ritalin SR, Metadate ER) Methylphenidate ER/SA 72 mg generic Methylphenidate oral solution generic Mydayis (amphetamine/dextroamphetamine ER) Ritalin LA 10 mg
    [Show full text]
  • (Adhd) Quantity Limitation Utilization Management Criteria
    ATTENTION- DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER (ADHD) QUANTITY LIMITATION UTILIZATION MANAGEMENT CRITERIA DRUG CLASS: Stimulants and Non-Stimulants BRAND (generic) NAMES: Adderall® (amphetamine/dextroamphetamine) Adderall XR® (amphetamine/ dextroamphetamine ER) Adzenys XR-ODTTM (amphetamine ER dispersible) Aptensio XR® (methylphenidate ER) Concerta® (methylphenidate ER) Daytrana® (methylphenidate transdermal patch) Dextroampthetamine (DextroStat®) Dexedrine® (dextroamphetamine ER) DyanavelTM XR (amphetamine ER) Focalin XR® (dexmethylphenidate ER) Focalin® (dexmethylphenidate) Intuniv® (guanfacine ER) Kapvay® (clonidine ER) Metadate CD® (methylphenidate ER) Metadate ER® (methylphenidate ER) Methylin® (methylphenidate) Procentra® (dextroamphetamine) QuillichewTM (methylphenidate ER) Quillivant XR® (methylphenidate ER) Ritalin® (methylphenidate) Ritalin® LA (methylphenidate ER) Ritalin® SR (methylphenidate ER) Strattera® (atomoxetine) Vyvanse® (lisdexamphetamine) Zenzedi® (dextroamphetamine) COVERAGE AUTHORIZATION CRITERIA Non-formulary medications - Medications included in this criterion that are not part of ASO Net Results or Essential Formularies are subject to a trial and failure of up to TWO formulary alternatives that are clinically appropriate, to treat the same condition, prior to approval (see Non-formulary Exception Criteria for detailed limitations). Quantities above the program set limit (see pgs 2-4) for ADHD agents will be approved when the following is met: 1. The quantity (dose) requested is for documented titration purposes at the initiation of therapy (authorization for a 90 day titration period); AND 2. The prescribed dose cannot be achieved using a lesser quantity of a higher strength; AND 3. The quantity (dose) requested does not exceed the maximum FDA labeled dose, when specified, or to the safest studied dose per the manufacturer’s product insert; OR BLUE CROSS®, BLUE SHIELD® and the Cross and Shield Symbols are registered marks of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield Plans.
    [Show full text]
  • Suicides Due to Alcohol And/Or Drug Overdose
    Suicides Due to Alcohol and/or Drug Overdose A Data Brief from the National Violent Death Reporting System National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Division of Violence Prevention Background Suicide occurs when a person ends his or her own life. It is the 11th leading cause of death among NVDRS is a state-based system for Americans, and every year more than 33,000 providing detailed information about people end their own lives. Suicide is found in violent deaths, such as when, where, every age, racial, and ethnic group to differing and how they happen and other possible degrees (1). contributing factors. This information can be used to monitor homicides and There are a number of factors that increase the suicides and design and evaluate prevention likelihood a person will take his or her own life; strategies. Benefits of NVDRS include the one of these is abusing substances such as alcohol following: and drugs (1). Alcohol and drug abuse are second only to depression and other mood disorders as• Linked records describing the detailed the most frequent risk factors for suicidal behavior circumstances that may contribute to a (2, 3). Alcohol and some drugs can result in a loss violent death of inhibition, may increase impulsive behavior, can lead to changes in the brain that result in • Identification of violent deaths occurring depression over time, and can be disruptive to together to help describe the circumstance relationships— resulting in alienation and a loss of multiple homicides or homicide- of social connection (4). Furthermore, excessive suicides acute drug and/or alcohol ingestion could result in death.
    [Show full text]