MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2330177754 · doi:10.1093/jat/bku031

Multiple Fatalities Involving a New Designer Drug: Para-Methyl-4-Methylaminorex

2014· letter· en· W2330177754 sur OpenAlexaff
Simon H. Cosbey, Stefanie Kirk, M. McNaul, Lesley Peters, Boone M. Prentice, Amy Quinn, Simon Elliott, Simon D. Brandt, Roland Archer

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Analytical Toxicology · 2014
Typeletter
Langueen
DomainePharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
ThématiqueForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Établissements canadiensScience North
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDesigner drugDrugChemistryComputer sciencePharmacologyMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In recent years, the pace at which new psychoactive substances (NPS) have emerged has accelerated considerably. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) reported that between 2005 and 2011, 164 NPS were formally notified through the early warning system. While 49 NPS were notified in 2011 alone (1), a further increase of 73 NPS has been observed for 2012 (2). Many of these substances are sold in so-called head shops or over the internet and are often described as “not for human consumption” to avoid regulatory difficulties. The commercial availability of these substances may differ between countries but appears to be influenced by their control status, which means that there may be a tendency to change the product catalog of available substances by introducing new analogs that may not be captured by legislative control. The toxicity of these new substances is often poorly understood, although many of the compounds appear to have psychoactive and psychostimulant properties in humans. However, fatal toxicity has been attributed to many of these compounds as well, either with or without the presence of other drugs (3). A cluster of deaths in Northern Ireland occurred during 2013 and several of these were associated with the police seizure of tablet items (“Speckled Cherry” and “Speckled Cross” motifs). The analysis of both tablet types revealed the presence of a new designer drug which was characterized as para-methyl-4-methylaminorex (4,4′-DMAR) which appears to be known, among other names, as “Serotoni” (4). The presence of two chiral centers gives rise to two diastereomeric cis- and trans-racemates, and further work is required to unambiguously identify the species identified in these cases. Although 4-methylaminorex and aminorex are listed as controlled substances in the UK legislation, the para-methyl derivative is not subject to control at this time. 4,4′-DMAR derives from a range of aminorex analogs that have been explored in the 1960s as potential appetite suppressants (5), which have been occasionally considered as potential designer drugs (6). However, 4-methylaminorex (U4Euh) was perhaps one of the few analogs that have attracted some attention first in the 1980s (7–9). The presence of 4,4′-DMAR was detected in toxicology samples submitted in a number of drug abuse deaths; some of which were directly associated with the tablet seizures. To date, the drug has been detected (in blood/urine/gastric contents) in a total of 18 fatal cases in Northern Ireland. In all of these cases at least one other drug was also detected. Excluding two of the cases, where the drug concentrations were very low (<0.02 mg/L), post mortem concentrations of 4,4′-DMAR, ranged from 0.20 to 3.75 mg/L (median 1.18 mg/L). The presence of 4,4′-DMAR was first notified to the EMCDDA in December 2012 (2) but to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there have been no formally published case reports on fatal cases associated with this drug. However, there are indications that this drug may have also been involved in eight recent fatalities in another European country (10). The purpose of this communication is to draw attention to this drug within the toxicology community and include brief analytical information and toxicological findings. A more detailed case report will be the subject of future publication and will include pathological findings, further case information and likely toxicological impact of the drug. So far, two tablet types have been identified which have been found to contain the drug; both were speckled brown in color and bore either a “cherry” or a “cross” imprint. Approximate dimensions were 9.0 × 3.8 mm (speckled cherry) and 8.9 × 4.3 mm (speckled cross). Although basic drug (un-derivatized) GC–MS screening proved relatively insensitive, satisfactory results were obtained with the implementation of ultra/high-performance liquid chromatography with diode array detector (U/HPLC-DAD) and LC–MS (both nominal mass LC–MS and high-resolution U/HPLC–MS). Cross-reactivity with common immunoassay screening kits has not been determined. Suspected 4,4′-DMAR (not certified) was donated by Scientific Supplies Ltd. (London, UK), and structural characterization with regards to its cis/trans identity will be published in due course elsewhere. A stock solution of the drug was prepared at a concentration of 1 mg/mL in methanol and kept in the freezer. This stock solution was used to prepare working standard solutions in methanol. Initial identification in biological fluid was obtained using an Agilent 6540 QTOF-MS with subsequent screening of further cases carried out using an Orbitrap Exactive Plus instrument, based on a protonated accurate mass of m/z 191.1178. Case extracts were prepared from blood, urine and gastric contents by solid-phase extraction using Biotage ABN cartridges. Targeted quantitative analysis was carried out using an Agilent LC-MS/MSD Trap with an Agilent Zorbax SBC-18 column (150 × 2.1 mm, 3.5 μm). The column temperature was set at 40°C with elution based on a formic acid and methanol gradient. The parent mass targeted during analysis was m/z 190.6, which fragmented to give the product ion at m/z 147.5. Extracts were prepared from blood, urine and gastric contents by liquid–liquid extraction at pH 11 into tert-butyl methyl ether and reconstituted in methanol. The approximate limit of detection determined for 4,4′-DMAR was 0.001 mg/L. A Thermo Dionex 3000 Ultimate HPLC-DAD system was used (200–595 nm) with a Phenomenex Synergi Fusion column (150 × 2.0 mm, 4 µm). The column temperature was set at 30°C with elution based on a triethylammonium phosphate and acetonitrile gradient.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Étude de cas · Signal consensuel: Étude de cas
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,028
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,024

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0280,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,141
Tête enseignante GPT0,410
Écart entre enseignants0,269 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeÉtude de cas
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations16
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentnon

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Analytical ToxicologyMême sujetForensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisTravaux en français237 207