Summary
Illicit drugs are often used as aphrodisiacs to enhance sexual performance and/or pleasure; however, the available data suggest that most illicit drugs have adverse effects on erection, ...sexual desire and ejaculation latency in males and that these effects are not fully understood. This study aimed to determine the effect of illicit drug abuse on male sexual function, based on the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) score. This descriptive study was conducted at the Alcohol and Substance Research Treatment and Education Center, Ankara, Turkey. Males diagnosed as substance use disorder according to DSM‐IV (n = 101) were included as the patient group, and age‐matched healthy male volunteers (n = 43) were included as the control group. A 30‐item sociodemographic interview form developed by researchers and the 15‐item IIEF were administered to all the participants. Data were compared between the patient and control groups. Mean IIEF score was 46.7 ± 3.3 in the patients that used alcohol, 23.7 ± 3.3 in the opioid users, 34.1 ± 5.3 in the ecstasy users, 43.5 ± 4.2 in the cannabis users and 55.3 ± 1.6 in the control group. There was not a significant difference between the alcohol and cannabis users' mean IIEF scores and that in the control group (P > 0.05 and >0.05 respectively), whereas there was a significant difference between the opioid and ecstasy users' mean IIEF scores and that in the control group (P < 0.001 and <0.001 respectively). All IIEF subscale scores in the opioid users were significantly lower than in the control group (P < 0.001). IIEF erectile function, sexual desire and general satisfaction subscale scores were significantly lower in the ecstasy users than in the control group (P < 0.001, <0.005 and <0.001 respectively). In the alcohol users only, the IIEF general satisfaction subscale score was lower than in the control group (P < 0.005).
Background and objective: Propofol may decrease seizure duration in electroconvulsive therapy. Although not proven, prolonged seizures may be more efficacious. The goal of this study was to evaluate ...and compare effects of alfentanil and remifentanil on seizure duration, recovery parameters and degree of stimulus amplitude in patients undergoing electroconvulsive therapy.
Methods: Twenty‐four ASA I–II patients enrolled in this prospective, randomized trial, each receiving a total of seven electroconvulsive therapies. Patients were randomized to receive only Propofol, group P (0.75 mg kg−1, n = 8), Propofol with alfentanil, group A (10 µg kg−1 alfentanil + 0.5 mg kg−1 Propofol, n = 8) and Propofol with remifentanil, group R (1 µg kg−1 remifentanil +0.5 mg kg−1 propofol, n = 8) via an iv route. Supplemental doses of propofol were given as required to achieve loss of consciousness. Succinylcholine 0.5 mg kg−1 iv was given to all groups for muscular paralysis. We recorded hemodynamic parameters, cortical and motor seizure durations, and recovery parameters.
Results: Mean motor seizure duration was found to be significantly longer in patients receiving propofol‐remifentanil anesthesia (53.3 ± 13.6 s) and propofol‐alfentanil anesthesia (52.2 ± 0.4 s) compared with propofol anesthesia (37.6 ± 9.2 s) (P = 0.001). Recovery parameters and stimulus amplitudes were similar in groups A and R; significantly different from group P (P = 0.001).
Conclusions: Adding 10 µg kg−1 alfentanil or 1 µg kg−1 remifentanil to reduced doses of propofol provided unconsciousness and increased seizure durations. For patients who need higher stimulus amplitudes for longer seizure durations, combining low‐dose propofol with alfentanil or remifentanil may be good alternative regimens for ECT.
Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a chronic illness associated with a major burden on quality of life (QOL) and health care resources. Aripiprazole augmentation to antidepressant treatment was ...recently approved for patients with MDD responding insufficiently to antidepressant treatment in Turkey. The objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of aripiprazole augmentation in this indication compared with olanzapine and quetiapine augmentation from a payer perspective.
A lifetime economic model was built simulating transitions of patients with MDD between major depressive episodes (MDEs) and remission. During MDEs, patients were treated with adjunctive aripiprazole, quetiapine, or olanzapine. Patients who did not respond switched to subsequent treatment lines. Comparative effectiveness between adjunctive aripiprazole, quetiapine, and olanzapine was estimated by using an indirect comparison. Resource utilization and costs were obtained from Turkish studies.
Over a lifetime horizon, patients treated with aripiprazole spent less time in MDEs than did patients treated with quetiapine (−11 weeks) and olanzapine (−7 weeks). On average, patients treated with aripiprazole showed improvement in QOL compared with patients treated with quetiapine (+0.054 quality-adjusted life-years QALYs) and olanzapine (+0.039 QALYs) combined with cost saving of 593 Turkish lira (TL) versus quetiapine and 485 TL versus olanzapine. The probability that adjunctive aripiprazole would be cost-effective among the three strategies ranged between 74% and 75% for willingness-to-pay values between 0 TL and 100,000 TL per QALY gained.
This is the first lifetime health-economic model in Turkey that takes patient heterogeneity into account when assessing QOL and costs of different adjunctive strategies in MDD. The results indicate that adjunctive treatment with aripiprazole provides health benefits at lower costs in patients with MDD when compared with quetiapine and olanzapine augmentation.
PDF
