Opiates, cocaine and alcohol combinations in accidental drug overdose deaths in New York City, 1990–98

Coffin, Phillip O.; Galea, Sandro; Ahern, Jennifer; Leon, Andrew C.; Vlahov, David; Tardiff, Kenneth

doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00376.x

Cited by 310 publications

(218 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

199

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Typically, as indicated by examination of patterns of use, individuals who initiate more than one substance progress from alcohol and/or tobacco as the first substance initiated to more "illicit" drugs, such as marijuana (Kandel and Yamaguchi, 2002). Further, research has consistently documented that a greater degree of substance involvement indicated by use of more than one substance leads to more problematic outcomes (Coffin et al, 2003;Degenhardt et al, 2007;Ives and Ghelani, 2006;McCabe et al, 2006;Schensul et al, 2005;Wish et al, 2006). For these reasons adolescents considered to be at higher risk were those who had initiated more than one substance.…”

Section: Pretest Equivalencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the more serious types of substance use, poly-substance use (i.e., the use of different substances on the same or different occasions- Toumbourou and Catalano, 2005), is particularly important to consider. Adolescent poly-substance use is associated with a number of problematic outcomes, such as adverse psychological and social consequences, particularly for girls (Lex, 1995;Overman et al, 2004), increased delinquent acts for boys (Mason and Windle, 2002), an increased likelihood of developing substance abuse and other mental health problems in adulthood (Newcomb and Felix-Ortiz, 1992;Toumbourou and Catalano, 2005), lower levels of adolescent achievement motivation and adult job-related problems (Mohler-Kuo et al, 2003;Stein et al, 1993), accidental death due to drug overdose (Coffin et al, 2003), suicide (Midanik et al, 2007), high-risk sexual behaviors (Midanik et al, 2007), and substance-related accidents in adulthood .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Substance use outcomes 5½ years past baseline for partnership-based, family-school preventive interventions

Spoth

Randall

Trudeau

et al. 2008

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

104

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports adolescent substance use outcomes of universal family and school preventive interventions 5½ years past baseline. Participants were 1677 7th grade students from schools (N = 36) randomly assigned to the school-based Life Skills Training plus the Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10-14 (LST + SFP 10-14), LST-alone, or a control condition. Selfreports were collected at baseline, 6 months later following the interventions, then yearly through the 12th grade. Measures included initiation-alcohol, cigarette, marijuana, and drunkenness, along with a Substance Initiation Index (SII)-and measures of more serious use-frequency of alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use, drunkenness frequency, monthly poly-substance use, and advanced poly-substance use. Analyses ruled out differential attrition. For all substance initiation outcomes, one or both intervention groups showed significant, positive point-in-time differences at 12th grade and/or significant growth trajectory outcomes when compared with the control group. Although no main effects for the more serious substance use outcomes were observed, a higher-risk subsample demonstrated significant, positive 12th grade point-in-time and/or growth trajectory outcomes for one or both intervention groups on all measures. The observed pattern of results likely reflects a combination of predispositions of the higher-risk subsample, the timing of the interventions, and baseline differences between experimental conditions favoring the control group.

show abstract

Section: Pretest Equivalencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Substance use outcomes 5½ years past baseline for partnership-based, family-school preventive interventions

Spoth

Randall

Trudeau

et al. 2008

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

104

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The LACC data include several variables of interest: demographics, circumstances of death, time and location of death, and complete toxicology results. Coroner and medical examiner data have been used to examine various aspects of drug-related mortality in numerous other jurisdictions, including agencies from New Mexico, 21,22,32 New York City, [23][24][25] Georgia, 33 Maine, 34 Canada, 35 Sweden, 31 Australia, 36 and England. 37,38 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have also issued several reports on drug-related deaths using data from medical examiners in Multnomah County, Oregon; 39 King County, Washington; 40 Utah; 7 and New Rates are per 100,000 population and age adjusted to the 2000 US population a The different drug categories are not mutually exclusive; many deaths tested positive for drugs in more than one category Mexico.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…21,22 Studies in New York City looked at deaths caused by certain substances such as heroin, methadone, opiates, cocaine, and alcohol and at differences in drug deaths by racial/ethnic groups. [23][24][25] These studies relied either on the coroner to identify which deaths were drug related or on a manual review of coroner cases to identify drug related deaths.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a Coroner-Based Surveillance System for Drug-Related Deaths in Los Angeles County

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Existing data sources do not provide comprehensive and timely information to adequately monitor drug-related mortality in Los Angeles County. To fill this gap, a surveillance system using coroner data was developed to examine patterns in drugrelated deaths. The coroner provided data on all injury deaths in Los Angeles County. A list of keywords that indicate a death was caused by drug use was developed. The cause of death variables in the coroner data were searched for mentions of one of the keywords; if a keyword was detected, that death was classified as drug related. The effectiveness of the keyword list in classifying drug-related deaths was evaluated by matching records in the coroner death data to records in the state death files. Then, the drug-related deaths identified using the keywords were compared to drug-related deaths in the state mortality files identified using International Classification of Death codes. Toxicological test results were used to categorize drug-related deaths based on the type and legality of the drug(s) ingested. Mortality rates were calculated for each category of drug and legal status and for different demographic groups. Compared to the gold standard state mortality files, the coroner data had a sensitivity of 95.6% for identifying drug-related deaths. Over three quarters of all drug-related deaths tested positive for opiates and/or stimulants. Males, Whites, and 35-54-year-olds each accounted for more than half of all drug-related deaths. The surveillance of drug-related deaths using coroner data has several advantages: data are available in a timely fashion, the data include information about the specific substances each victim ingested, and the data can be broken down to compare mortality among specific subpopulations.

show abstract

“…In the VIDUS cohort, cocaine injection has been identified as a predictor of both HIV and HCV prevalence (Patrick et al, 1997;Spittal et al, 2003). Reviews of overdose mortality among IDUs have identified (combination) drug use -specifically involving opioids and cocaine -as a major determinant of overdose fatality (O'Driscoll et al, 2001;Coffin et al, 2003;Darke & Hall, 2003). During the massive spike of fatal drug overdose incidents in British Columbia in the mid1990s, cocaine use had been present in a disproportionate number of overdose incidents .…”

Section: Risks and Harms Associated With Cocaine And Crack Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Differences between co-users of cocaine and crack among Canadian illicit opioid users

Fischer¹,

Monga²,

Manzoni³

2005

SUCHT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unterschiede zwischen Ko-Gebrauchern von Kokain und Crack bei kanadischen Opioid-Konsumenten Fragestellung: Es wurden Unterschiede zwischen Ko-Gebrauchern von Kokain und Crack in einer kanadischen Kohorte illegaler Opioid-Konsumenten (»OPICAN«) untersucht. Methodik: Kohortenteilnehmer wurden durch Schneeball-Methoden rekrutiert und mittels eines standardisierten Instrumenten-Protokolls befragt. Prävalenzraten verschiedener Substanzen sowie Unterschiede zwischen ausgewählten Indikatoren und den beiden Subgruppen wurden bivariat geprüft. Ergebnisse: Zirka die Hälfte der Studienteilnehmer indizierten Ko-Konsum von Crack beziehungsweise Kokain. Erstere Gruppe zeichnete sich primär durch sozioökonomische Marginalisierung, zweitere durch eine höhere Prävalenz von Depression aus. Schlussfolgerungen: Ko-Gebraucher von Opioiden mit Kokain und Crack in Kanada können als distinkte Subkulturen mit spezifischen Risikofaktoren angesehen werden. Ausgewählte Implikationen für Interventionen werden angesprochen.

show abstract

Opiates, cocaine and alcohol combinations in accidental drug overdose deaths in New York City, 1990–98

Abstract: These data suggest that interventions to prevent accidental overdose mortality should address the use of drugs such as heroin, cocaine and alcohol in combination.

Cited by 310 publications

References 30 publications

Substance use outcomes 5½ years past baseline for partnership-based, family-school preventive interventions

Substance use outcomes 5½ years past baseline for partnership-based, family-school preventive interventions

Development of a Coroner-Based Surveillance System for Drug-Related Deaths in Los Angeles County

Differences between co-users of cocaine and crack among Canadian illicit opioid users

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About