In the psychiatric acute and emergency services patients present in severe crisis often complicated by behavioral problems, substance use, and multiple axis 1 diagnoses. In these clinical settings both legal and illegal use of benzodiazepines are difficult to evaluate since benzodiazepines could in some patients be regarded as first line treatment and in other patients as the cause of the acute psychiatric condition. The aims of this study were to evaluate the frequency and clinical effects of both legal and illegal use of benzodiazepines at admittance to a psychiatric acute department.
Methods
All patients acutely admitted to a Norwegian acute psychiatric university department serving a catchment area were asked about use of benzodiazepines, other medications and substances before admission. Patients were asked to give urine samples for analyses of benzodiazepines and substances.
Results
In 227 consecutive admissions there was legal use of benzodiazepines before admission in 39%, illegal use in 13% and no use in 48%. Patients with legal use of benzodiazepines were older, used more often antidepressants and a higher number of prescribed psychotropic medications. Illegal users of benzodiazepines more often used other illegal substances, were evaluated as clinically affected by a substance at admittance and were diagnosed with a substance use disorder. Patients with psychoses or major affective disorders treated with adequate medication (antidepressants, antipsychotics or mood-stabilizers) before admission more often received benzodiazepines than patients without adequate medication.
Conclusions
The patients using benzodiazepines at admittance to psychiatric acute departments could be divided in illegal and legal users. The illegal users were young, used illegal substances and were more often regarded clinically affected by substances at admittance. The legal users were older, did not use other substances and were not regarded as clinically affected by substances at admittance. Benzodiazepines were used as adjuvant therapy to specific pharmacological treatment with antidepressants, antipsychotics or mood stabilizers for major psychiatric disorders.
Trial registration
NCT 00184119/NCT 00184132
Background
Use and abuse of benzodiazepines are difficult to evaluate in psychiatric acute admissions. Patients present in severe crisis often complicated by behavioral problems, substance use, and multiple axis 1 diagnoses [1]. In these clinical settings benzodiazepines are regarded as first line nonspecific treatment in patients suffering from acute agitated and psychotic conditions without known cause [2], and specific treatment in patients suffering from acute catatonia [3]. In patients suffering from severe agitation and substance abuse, benzodiazepines may also be regarded as first line acute treatment [4]. A substantial number of other patients suffering from psychoses or major depressive disorders use benzodiazepines as adjuvant symptomatic treatment to antipsychotics, mood stabilizers or antidepressants [2, 5, 6]. Patients with depression may however receive benzodiazepines for years without being treated with antidepressants [7–9].
Medication with benzodiazepines may have short and long time negative consequences. Frequently patients are admitted to psychiatric acute departments due to abstinence, intoxication, delirium and seizures [10]. Benzodiazepines are also abused in combination with illegal substances. Such abuse as part of a major psychiatric disorder is probably frequent [7].
Benzodiazepine use has been found in 40 to 45% of patients admitted to psychiatric hospitals [11–15], and being female and old increase the use of benzodiazepines [16, 17]. Studies of illegal use of benzodiazepines in acute psychiatric admissions are few and the authors found no studies comparing legal and illegal use at admittance.
The aims of the present study were to assess the frequency of use of legal and illegal benzodiazepines at admissions to an acute psychiatric department and to compare patients using legal, illegal and no benzodiazepines.
Methods
Setting
The psychiatric acute department at Østmarka, St. Olav's University Hospital Trondheim, Norway had a catchment area of 140.000 inhabitants. About 700 patients above 18 years with acute psychiatric conditions were admitted each year. All patients in the catchment area suffering from acute psychiatric conditions with symptoms to a degree that locked in-patient ward was needed, were admitted to this department. Norwegian acute psychiatric services are public and available to everyone.
Material
All acute admissions to inpatient treatment in a five month period were included. If patients were admitted more than once, all admissions were included.
At admission the patients were systematically asked about use of prescribed and non-prescribed psychotropic medication. All medications used before admission and still being prescribed at the time of admission were recorded. Benzodiazepine derivates sold for oral use in Norway were diazepam, oxazepam, alprazolam, clonazepam, flunitrazepam and nitrazepam. Zopiclone and zolpidem were categorized as non- benzodiazepine hypnotics. Use of benzodiazepines without a prescription is illegal in Norway [18].
The doctor on duty asked all patients at admission if they had used any substances during the last week. The doctor on duty also made an assessment whether the patient were clinically affected by substances or not.
All patients were asked to give urine samples as soon as possible and samples collected within 24 hours after admission were included in the study. Findings of substances used after admissions were not reported. The samples were analyzed with liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry (LC-MS). Substances in urine were reported as present or not present.
Use of substances or medications was defined by either the patient reported use of substances or medication during the last week before admission, the medication was reported used as a prescribed medication, or the substances or medication were detected in urine samples at admission. The following psychotropic medications were recorded: Antiepileptics, lithium, antidepressants, sedatives and anxiolytics, antipsychotics, psychostimulants, methadone and buprenorfin.
Diagnoses according to ICD-10 "Diagnostic criteria for research" [19] were set at discharge in a weekly consensus meeting in the department's staff including the patient's therapist and at least two psychiatrists of whom at least one personally knew the patient. In the present study both main and secondary diagnoses are reported.
The patients were assessed with the Global Assessment Scale Split version (GAF-S) at admittance [20]. GAF-S is based on DSM-4's GAF and is a two-item scale measuring global symptoms (GAF-S-Symptoms) and functioning (GAF-S-Function) separately [21].
In the group of patients with psychotic disorders (ICD-10 F 20.00 - F 29.99) use of antipsychotics in usual clinical doses for psychoses at admission was defined as adequate treatment. In patients with affective disorders (ICD-10 F 30.00 - F39.99) admitted with current episode depression, all antidepressants and mood stabilizing medication were defined as adequate. In addition atypical antipsychotics was defined as adequate treatment for patients with bipolar disorder, and all antipsychotics was defined as adequate treatment of mania [22].
The admissions were divided in legal use of benzodiazepines before admission defined as use of prescribed benzodiazepines, illegal use defined as use of non prescribed benzodiazepines or a combination of prescribed and non prescribed benzodiazepines, and no use of benzodiazepines before admission. Use of benzodiazepine was considered non-prescribed if there was no record of prescribed benzodiazepine for the last year before admission, or if a previous prescription was terminated by a doctor. New information received during the stay at hospital was included in the judgment. All written information from the admitting doctor and the hospital staff for the index admission and admissions from the last year before the index admission was reviewed in order to assure the right group assignment.
Ethics
The study was approved by "The Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics, Central Norway".
Statistics
Categorical variables were analyzed using Chi- squared test or Fisher's exact test. Ordinal variables were compared using Mann-Whitney U-test/Kruskal Wallis test, and continuous variables were analyzed using Students t-test/ANOVA. Association of frequencies and age groups was analyzed with the Linear-by-linear association test. The α-level was set to 0.05. SSPS version 17.0 for Windows was used.
Results
In the study period 184 patients with 227 admissions were included. Mean age was 39.5 years (SD 15.5 years). There were 95 women with 122 admissions and 89 men with 105 admissions.
There was legal use of benzodiazepines before admission in 89 (39%) of 227 admissions, illegal use in 30 (13%) admissions, 9 of these combined legal and illegal benzodiazepines, and no use in 108 (48%) admissions. Patients with legal use of benzodiazepines were older, used more often antidepressants and a higher number of prescribed psychotropic medications than the rest of the patients (Table 1).
Table 1
Use of psychotropic medications for patients using legal, illegal and no benzodiazepines.
Legal (n = 89)
Illegal (n = 30)
No (n = 108)
All (n = 227)
P
Demographics
Women1 (%)
56 (63)
16 (53)
50 (46)
122 (54)
Ns
Age2
45.1
35.5
36.0
39.5
<0.001
Use of medications
Antipsychotics1 (%)
31 (35)
4 (13)
31 (29)
66 (29)
Ns
Antidepressants1,3 (%)
34 (38)
10 (33)
23 (21)
67 (30)
0.031
Mood stabilizers1 (%)
12 (13)
4 (13)
9 (8)
25 (11)
Ns
Number of prescribed psychotropic medications, not including benzodiazepines4
1.58
1.17
0.96
1.23
<0.001
1Chi-square test with 95% confidence intervals computed for each square if Chi-square test is significant.
2One-Way ANOVA test with Post Hoc Tamhane's tests, legal users were older than no users (P < 0.001) and older than illegal users (P = 0.004).
3No users of benzodiazepines used less antidepressants than legal users.
4Kruskal-Wallis tests with Post Hoc Mann- Whitney U tests, legal users used more other psychiatric medications than no users (p < 0.001).
In 65 of 104 (62.5%) admissions with psychoses or major affective disorders (ICD-10 F 20.00 - 39.99), the patients received adequate medication with antipsychotics, antidepressants or mood stabilizers before admission. Among the 65 patients receiving adequate medication, 34 (52%) used benzodiazepines while among the 39 patients that did not receive adequate medication 11 (28%) used benzodiazepines. (χ2 = 5.77, df = 1, p = 0.016).
Legal users had a higher number of prescribed psychotropic medications not including benzodiazepines than no users (Table 1). Patients with psychoses or major affective disorders (ICD-10 F 20.00-39.00) treated with adequate medication, received a higher number of psychotropic medications not including benzodiazepines than patients without adequate medication (mean 1.91 (SD 0.861) vs. 0.33 (SD 0.621), p < 0.001) (Mann-Whitney U Test).
Illegal users of benzodiazepines more often used illegal opiates, cannabis and illegal psychostimulants, and were often evaluated as clinically affected by a substance at admittance (Table 2). The illegal users were also more often diagnosed with a substance use disorder (15/30 (50%) vs. 57/197 (29%), χ2 = 5.33, df = 1, p = 0.02, a benzodiazepine use disorder (10/30 (33%) vs. 8/197 (4%) (Fisher's Exact test P < 0.001) and with a substance use disorder as the main diagnosis (10/30 (33%) vs. 16/197 (8%), χ2 = 16.3, df = 1 p < 0.001). The frequency of benzodiazepine use disorders in legal users of benzodiazepine was 9% (8/89).
Table 2
Reported use of substances, doctor's evaluation and findings in urine samples1 at admission.
Legal (n = 89)
Illegal (n = 30)
No (n = 108)
All (n = 227)
P
Patient report
Use of alcohol last week2 (%)
29 (33)
15 (50)
49 (45)
93 (41)
Ns
Use of illegal opiates last week3 (%)
3 (3)
7 (23)
0 (0)
10 (4)
<0.001
Use of cannabis last week2 (%)
2 (2)
9 (30)
8 (7)
19 (8)
<0.001
Use of illegal stimulants last week3 (%)
1 (1)
5 (17)
4 (4)
10 (4)
0.004
Doctor's assessment
Patient regarded clinically affected by a substance3 (%)
17 (19)
11 (37)
7 (6)
35 (15)
<0.001
Urine samples2
n = 75
n = 30
n = 91
n = 196
Ns
Ethanol in urine3 (%)
4 (4)
2 (7)
5 (5)
11 (5)
Ns
Illegal opiates in urine3 (%)
3 (3)
5 (17)
2 (2)
10 (4)
0.015
Cannabis in urine2 (%)
6 (7)
7 (23)
7 (6)
20 (9)
0.036
Illegal stimulants in urine3 (%)
0 (0)
5 (17)
4 (4)
9 (4)
0.001
Two or more benzo diazepines in urine sample2 (%)
9 (10)
10 (33)
-
19 (8)
<0.001
Values higher or lower than expected are marked with bold or underlined italics, respectively.
1Urine samples analyzed with the LC-MS method.
2Chi-square test with 95% confidence interval computed for each square if Chi-square test is significant.
3Fisher's Exact test with 95% confidence interval computed for each square if Fisher's Exact test is significant.
Urine samples were given in 196 of 227 admissions (86%). The results are summarized in Table 2. The correlations between verbal reports of the patients and urine analyses are published previously [13]. In the benzodiazepine group 4 patients (3%) had denied use but tested positive.
Average score for GAF for all admissions was 38.2 for symptoms and 39.0 for function, with no differences between legal, illegal and no users of benzodiazepines.
Legal use increased with age (Linear-by-linear association test, P < 0.001), and 80% of patients 65 years and older used benzodiazepines at admittance. Illegal use was most frequent in young patients (Linear-by-linear association test, P = 0.047) (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Use of legal and illegal benzodiazepines at admission for 227 admissions to an acute psychiatric department.
A somatic disease had been diagnosed in 73 admissions (32%). These were diseases of the nervous system (ICD-10 G00-G99) in 28 admissions, diseases of the circulatory system (I00-I99) in 25, diseases of the endocrine and metabolic system (E00-E90) in 17, diseases of the digestive system (K00-K93) in 6, diseases of the respiratory system (J00-J99) in 5 and various diseases in 18 admissions.
Discussion
Patients admitted to psychiatric acute departments using benzodiazepines could be divided in two main groups. Illegal users were young, reported use of multiple illegal substances and were regarded as clinically affected by substances at admittance by the doctor on duty. Legal users were older, did not use multiple substances and were not regarded as clinically affected by substances at admittance. Among the illegal users, more than one benzodiazepine was frequent and the patients often had a substance use disorder. The findings at admittance were supported by the results from the laboratory tests.
In 62.5% of admissions with psychoses or major affective disorders the patients had received adequate medications before admission. Adequate medications were combined with benzodiazepines in 34 of 65 admissions while only 11 of 39 patients without adequate medication prior to admission received benzodiazepines. This indicates that patients with psychoses or affective disorders in risk of being admitted to psychiatric emergency departments are treated with benzodiazepines to relieve acute symptoms as long as the patients display symptoms sufficient for their psychiatric conditions to be diagnosed [2].
The major clinical challenge emerging from the present study is the relatively large population not receiving neither specific nor nonspecific pharmacological treatments before admission. This indicates that many acute major psychiatric episodes were neither recognized nor diagnosed before the acute emergency situation brought the patients to the acute department.
The use of antidepressants was lower among no users than among legal users of benzodiazepines (Table 1). We can not exclude the possibility that antidepressants induce adverse symptoms as agitation in sensitive individuals leading to more use of benzodiazepines [23, 24]. Agitation is common in severe depression (40 - 70%) [23] and is a frequent cause of admittance to psychiatric emergency facilities [25]. Benzodiazepines are effective and safe in the treatment of agitation [26]. Our data therefore supports that use of benzodiazepines in our present acute population could be clinically well-funded.
The doctors were able by the clinical examination at admittance to indicate which patients were abusing benzodiazepines, and which patients were using benzodiazepines as a nonspecific, specific or adjuvant medication as part of the treatment of a major psychiatric disorder. The legal users were less often regarded as intoxicated than the illegal users. When using benzodiazepines as adjuvant treatment for major psychiatric disorders the need for such treatment would decline as specific treatment with antipsychotics, antidepressants or mood stabilizers have effect on the main disorder. The probability of long time negative consequences of using benzodiazepines as part of an addiction habit is less among the legal than the illegal users.
This study has limitations. "Doctor's evaluations" reflects the opinion of the experienced clinicians. We do not have data on how many patients have long-term use of benzodiazepines.
The present study is strengthened by the prospective design. All patients from a defined catchment area in need of acute psychiatric services were included. Laboratory tests were taken shortly after admittance to the acute department.
Conclusions
The patients admitted to psychiatric acute departments using benzodiazepines can be divided in two main groups. Illegal users were young, used multiple illegal substances and were often evaluated as clinically affected by substances at admittance. Legal users were older, did not use illegal substances and were less frequently evaluated as clinically affected by substances at admittance. Benzodiazepines were often used as adjuvants to specific pharmacological treatment with antidepressants, antipsychotics or mood stabilizers for major psychiatric disorders.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Trond Oskar Aamo, MD, Department of Clinical Pharmacology, St. Olav's Hospital for toxicological screens and continued cooperation. The funding came from St. Olav's University Hospital and The Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Authors’ Affiliations
(1)
Department of Neuroscience, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
(2)
Division of Psychiatry, Department Østmarka, St, Olav's University Hospital
References
Zealberg JJ, Brady KT: Substance abuse and emergency psychiatry. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 1999, 22: 803-817. 10.1016/S0193-953X(05)70127-1.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Nordstrom K, Allen MH: Managing the acutely agitated and psychotic patient. CNS Spectr. 2007, 12: 5-11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Weder ND, Muralee S, Penland H, Tampi RR: Catatonia: a review. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2008, 20: 97-107.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Allen MH, Currier GW, Hughes DH, Docherty JP, Carpenter D, Ross R: Treatment of behavioral emergencies: a summary of the expert consensus guidelines. J Psychiatr Pract. 2003, 9: 16-38. 10.1097/00131746-200301000-00004.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Wilhelm S, Schacht A, Wagner T: Use of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines in patients with psychiatric emergencies: results of an observational trial. BMC Psychiatry. 2008, 8: 61-10.1186/1471-244X-8-61.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Yildiz A, Sachs GS, Turgay A: Pharmacological management of agitation in emergency settings. Emerg Med J. 2003, 20: 339-346. 10.1136/emj.20.4.339.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Swann AC: The strong relationship between bipolar and substance-use disorder. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010, 1187: 276-293. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05146.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Balestrieri M, Marcon G, Samani F, Marini M, Sessa E, Gelatti U, Donato F: Mental disorders associated with benzodiazepine use among older primary care attenders - a regional survey. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2005, 40: 308-315. 10.1007/s00127-005-0899-9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Demyttenaere K, Bonnewyn A, Bruffaerts R, De GG, Gasquet I, Kovess V, Haro JM, Alonso J: Clinical factors influencing the prescription of antidepressants and benzodiazepines: results from the European study of the epidemiology of mental disorders (ESEMeD). J Affect Disord. 2008, 110: 84-93. 10.1016/j.jad.2008.01.011.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Mordal J, Bramness JG, Holm B, Morland J: Drugs of abuse among acute psychiatric and medical admissions: laboratory based identification of prevalence and drug influence. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2008, 30: 55-60. 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2007.10.006.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Bonsack C, Camus D, Kaufmann N, Aubert AC, Besson J, Baumann P, Borgeat F, Gillet M, Eap CB: Prevalence of substance use in a Swiss psychiatric hospital: interview reports and urine screening. Addict Behav. 2006, 31: 1252-1258. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.08.008.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Flovig JC, Vaaler AE, Morken G: Substance use at admission to an acute psychiatric department. Nord J Psychiatry. 2009, 63: 113-119. 10.1080/08039480802294787.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Vaaler AE, Morken G, Flovig JC, Iversen VC, Linaker OM: Substance abuse and recovery in a Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2006, 28: 65-70. 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2005.08.009.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick NK, Thompson CJ, Hemingway H, Barnes TRE, Higgitt A, Molloy C, Hargreaves S: Acute mental health admissions in inner London: Changes in patient characteristics and clinical admission thresholds between 1988 and 1998. Psychiatric Bulletin. 2003, 27: 7-11. 10.1192/pb.27.1.7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Magrini N, Vaccheri A, Parma E, D'Alessandro R, Bottoni A, Occhionero M, Montanaro N: Use of benzodiazepines in the Italian general population: prevalence, pattern of use and risk factors for use. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1996, 50: 19-25. 10.1007/s002280050063.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
van Hulten R, Leufkens HG, Bakker A: Usage patterns of benzodiazepines in a Dutch community: a 10-year follow-up. Pharm World Sci. 1998, 20: 78-82. 10.1023/A:1008636707219.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization: The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: diagnostic criteria for research. 1993, Geneva, Switzerland: WHOGoogle Scholar
Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 1994, Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association, 4Google Scholar
Pedersen G, Hagtvet KA, Karterud S: Generalizability studies of the Global Assessment of Functioning-Split version. Compr Psychiatry. 2007, 48: 88-94. 10.1016/j.comppsych.2006.03.008.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Derry S, Moore RA: Atypical antipsychotics in bipolar disorder: systematic review of randomised trials. BMC Psychiatry. 2007, 7: 40-10.1186/1471-244X-7-40.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
DeBattista C, Solomon A, Arnow B, Kendrick E, Tilston J, Schatzberg AF: The efficacy of divalproex sodium in the treatment of agitation associated with major depression. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2005, 25: 476-479. 10.1097/01.jcp.0000177552.21338.b0.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Maj M, Pirozzi R, Magliano L, Fiorillo A, Bartoli L: Agitated "unipolar" major depression: prevalence, phenomenology, and outcome. J Clin Psychiatry. 2006, 67: 712-719. 10.4088/JCP.v67n0504.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Battaglia J: Pharmacological management of acute agitation. Drugs. 2005, 65: 1207-1222. 10.2165/00003495-200565090-00003.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Allen MH: Managing the agitated psychotic patient: a reappraisal of the evidence. J Clin Psychiatry. 2000, 61 (Suppl 14): 11-20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
