Detection of unsuspected cathinone and piperazine-type drugs in urine samples positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine collected in emergency departments. / Detección no sospechada de catinonas y piperacinas en pacientes consumidores de metanfetamina y anfetamina atendidos en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios.

OBJECTIVES: To detect the presence of unsuspected and/or undeclared cathinone and piperazine-type designer drugs in methamphetamine (METH) and amphetamine users treated in emergency departments, and to compare clinical and toxicologic profiles. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study of emergency department patients treated for confirmed acute intoxication by recreational drugs (METH and amphetamines) between March 2019 and December 2020. We ordered high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry to detect cathinones (methylone, fluoromethcathinone, mexedrone, fluoromethamphetamine, mephedrone, methylenedioxypyrovalerone) and synthetic piperazines (meta-chlorophenylpiperazine and trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine). Demographic, clinical, and toxicologic variables were analyzed with SPSS software (version 23). RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were included: 24 (61.5%) had used METH and 15 (38.5%) an amphetamine. Synthetic cathinones were detected in samples from 11 patients (28.2%), 10 (90.9%) in the METH group and 1 (9.1%) in the amphetamine group (P = .028). The METH users had taken mephedrone (8 patients) or methylone (2 patients); the amphetamine user had taken mephedrone. None of the patients had declared use of a cathinone; nor was use suspected. The mean (SD) number of substances involved was higher among users of cathinones (3.5 [1.13] vs 2.5 [1.40] in those who took no cathinones; P = .036). Among the cathinone users, 90.9% were men, 90.9% had used METH, and 45.5% had practiced chemsex. HIV positivity was significantly associated with cathinone use (in 45.5% vs 10.7% of those not using cathinones; P = .028). All 5 of the patients who had taken cathinones and also practiced chemsex were HIV positive. Significantly more patients who had taken cathinones presented with anxiety (72.7% vs 21.43%; P = .007). No differences in clinical management were found. CONCLUSION: Detection of METH in intoxicated patients should raise suspicion of probable use of a synthetic cathinone. Patients in whom new psychoactive substances are detected should be kept under observation, and clinical protocols should include referring them to addiction treatment centers.

OBJETIVO: Determinar la incidencia de catinonas y piperazinas, no sospechadas y/o declaradas en consumidores de metanfetamina (MANF) y anfetamina (ANF) atendidos en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH) y comparar los perfiles clínicos y toxicológicos. METODO: Estudio retrospectivo de pacientes con intoxicación aguda por drogas recreativas con MANF y ANF confirmadas analíticamente atendidos en 3 SUH entre marzo de 2019 y diciembre de 2020. Se detectaron por HPLC-MS/MS las catinonas [metilona, fluorometcatinona, mecedrona, fluorometanfetamina, mefedrona, metilendioxipirovalerona (MDPV)] y las piperazinas sintéticas [meta-clorofenilpiperazina (mCPP), trifluorometilfenilpiperazina (TFMPP)]. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 39 pacientes: 24 (61,5%) en el grupo MANF y 15 (38,5%) en el ANF. En 11 (28,2%), se detectaron catinonas sintéticas (grupo CAT), 10 en el grupo MANF (8 mefedrona, 2 metilona) y 1 en el grupo ANF (1 mefedrona) (90,9% vs 9,1%; p = 0,028). Ninguno de los pacientes declaró consumo de catinonas. El número de drogas implicadas en la intoxicación fue superior en el grupo CAT (3,5 [1,13] vs 2,5 [1,40]; p = 0,036). El perfil clínico del grupo CAT fue: varón (90,9%), consumidor de MANF (90,9%) y usuario de chemsex (45,5%). El diagnóstico de VIH se asoció significativamente al grupo CAT (45,5% vs 10,7%; p = 0,028). Los pacientes del grupo CAT presentaron mayor ansiedad (72,7% vs 21,4%; p = 0,007). No se hallaron diferencias en su manejo clínico. CONCLUSIONES: La detección de MANF debería considerarse un dato de sospecha de consumo de catinonas sintéticas, y en esos casos debería contemplarse la detección de nuevas sustancias psicoactivas de abuso.

Detección no sospechada de catinonas y piperacinas en pacientes consumidores de metanfetamina y anfetamina atendidos en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios / Detection of unsuspected cathinone and piperazine-type drugs in urine samples positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine collected in emergency departments

Objetivos. Determinar la incidencia de catinonas y piperazinas, no sospechadas y/o declaradas en consumidores de metanfetamina (MANF) y anfetamina (ANF) atendidos en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH) y comparar los perfiles clínicos y toxicológicos. Método. Estudio retrospectivo de pacientes con intoxicación aguda por drogas recreativas con MANF y ANF confirmadas analíticamente atendidos en 3 SUH entre marzo de 2019 y diciembre de 2020. Se detectaron por HPLC-MS/MS las catinonas [metilona, fluorometcatinona, mecedrona, fluorometanfetamina, mefedrona, metilendioxipirovalerona (MDPV)] y las piperazinas sintéticas [meta-clorofenilpiperazina (mCPP), trifluorometilfenilpiperazina (TFMPP)]. Resultados. Se incluyeron 39 pacientes: 24 (61,5%) en el grupo MANF y 15 (38,5%) en el ANF. En 11 (28,2%), se detectaron catinonas sintéticas (grupo CAT), 10 en el grupo MANF (8 mefedrona, 2 metilona) y 1 en el grupo ANF (1 mefedrona) (90,9% vs 9,1%; p = 0,028). Ninguno de los pacientes declaró consumo de catinonas. El nú- mero de drogas implicadas en la intoxicación fue superior en el grupo CAT (3,5 [1,13] vs 2,5 [1,40]; p = 0,036). El perfil clínico del grupo CAT fue: varón (90,9%), consumidor de MANF (90,9%) y usuario de chemsex (45,5%). El diagnóstico de VIH se asoció significativamente al grupo CAT (45,5% vs 10,7%; p = 0,028). Los pacientes del grupo CAT presentaron mayor ansiedad (72,7% vs 21,4%; p = 0,007). No se hallaron diferencias en su manejo clínico. Conclusiones. La detección de MANF debería considerarse un dato de sospecha de consumo de catinonas sintéticas, y en esos casos debería contemplarse la detección de nuevas sustancias psicoactivas de abuso.

Objectives. To detect the presence of unsuspected and/or undeclared cathinone and piperazine-type designer drugs in methamphetamine (METH) and amphetamine users treated in emergency departments, and to compare clinical and toxicologic profiles. Method. Retrospective observational study of emergency department patients treated for confirmed acute intoxication by recreational drugs (METH and amphetamines) between March 2019 and December 2020. We ordered high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry to detect cathinones (methylone, fluoromethcathinone, mexedrone, fluoromethamphetamine, mephedrone, methylenedioxypyrovalerone) and synthetic piperazines (meta-chlorophenylpiperazine and trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine). Demographic, clinical, and toxicologic variables were analyzed with SPSS software (version 23). Results. Thirty-nine patients were included: 24 (61.5%) had used METH and 15 (38.5%) an amphetamine. Synthetic cathinones were detected in samples from 11 patients (28.2%), 10 (90.9%) in the METH group and 1 (9.1%) in the amphetamine group (P = .028). The METH users had taken mephedrone (8 patients) or methylone (2 patients); the amphetamine user had taken mephedrone. None of the patients had declared use of a cathinone; nor was use suspected. The mean (SD) number of substances involved was higher among users of cathinones (3.5 [1.13] vs 2.5 [1.40] in those who took no cathinones; P = .036). Among the cathinone users, 90.9% were men, 90.9% had used METH, and 45.5% had practiced chemsex. HIV positivity was significantly associated with cathinone use (in 45.5% vs 10.7% of those not using cathinones; P = .028). All 5 of the patients who had taken cathinones and also practiced chemsex were HIV positive. Significantly more patients who had taken cathinones presented with anxiety (72.7% vs 21.43%; P = .007). No differences in clinical management were found. [...]

Amphetamine and methamphetamine poisonings attended in hospital emergency departments: clinical features and the usefulness of laboratory confirmation. / Intoxicaciones por anfetamina y metanfetamina atendidas en los servicios de urgencias: características clínicas y utilidad de la confirmación analítica.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether clinical and toxicologic findings differed between cases of amphetamine (AMP) and methamphetamine (mAMP) poisoning attended in 2 Balearic Island hospital emergency departments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study of AMP and mAMP cases with laboratory confirmation between 2013 and 2018. We compared clinical and toxicologic variables as well as clinical management between groups. RESULTS: 1) A total of 120 cases were found: 86 (71.7%) with AMP poisoning and 34 (28.3%) with mAMP poisoning. 2) Drug poisoning was confirmed by gas chromatography associated with mass spectrometry (GC-MS) in 787 urine samples found to be positive during screening. One hundred fifty-four (19.6%) were confirmed by GC-MS. Thirtyfour of them did not meet the inclusion criteria. 3) Significant differences between AMP and mAMP cases were found for age (32.3 vs 28.4 y, respectively); sex (72.1% vs 94.1% men); and Spanish nationality (64.0% vs 29.4%). Reasons for admission and clinical features also differed: the reasons were aberrant behavior (15.1% in the AMP group vs 0% in the mAMP group) and palpitations (1.2% vs 20.6%); agitation was observed in 27.9% and 8.8%, respectively. Clinical management was similar in the 2 groups. Multiple drug poisoning was detected in 76.6% patients and was more common in patients in the AMP group (82.6% vs 61.8%). The additional drugs in these cases were mainly cocaine (63.0%), cannabis (48.9%), 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methamphetamine (MDMA) (38.0%), and alcohol (35.9%). Cannabis was detected in a significantly higher proportion in the AMP group (45.3%) than in the mAMP group (17.6%). False positives were found in 78.7% of the samples. The culprit drug was most often MDMA (71.2%). CONCLUSION: AMP poisonings were associated with age over 30 years, Spanish nationality, aberrant behavior, agitation, multiple drug findings, and the use of cannabis. Poisonings caused by mAMP abuse were associated with age under 30 years, non-Spanish nationality, palpitations, and single-drug use.

OBJETIVO: Investigar si existen diferencias clínicas y toxicológicas en pacientes intoxicados por anfetamina (ANF) y metanfetamina (MANF) atendidos en servicios de urgencias. METODO: Estudio observacional retrospectivo de intoxicaciones por ANF y MANF con confirmación analítica en Baleares (2013-2018). Se compararon variables clínicas, toxicológicas y de manejo clínico entre grupos. RESULTADOS: 1) Se incluyeron 120 pacientes, 86 (71,7%) grupo ANF y 34 (28,3%) grupo MANF. 2) La confirmación de derivados anfetamínicos se realizó por cromatografía de gases-espectrometría de masas en 787 muestras de orina previamente positivas mediante un método de cribado cualitativo. Se confirmaron 154 (19,6%) muestras. De ellas, 34 fueron excluidas. 3) Se encontraron diferencias significativas entre ANF y MANF en: edad (32,3 vs 28,4 años); sexo (72,1 vs 94,1% hombres); nacionalidad española (64,0 vs 29,4%); en motivos de admisión: alteración de conducta (15,1 vs 0%) y palpitaciones (1,2 vs 20,6%); y en características clínicas: agitación (27,9 vs 8,8%). No hubo diferencias de manejo clínico. El 76,6% de casos fueron polintoxicaciones, más comunes en ANF (82,6 vs 61,8%). En estos casos se detectó principalmente cocaína (63,0%), cannabis (48,9%), MDMA (38,0%) y alcohol (35,9%). La mayor asociación del cannabis con el grupo de ANF fue estadísticamente significativa (45,3 vs 17,6%). La causa de los falsos positivos se identificó en el 78,7% de muestras, siendo el MDMA (71,2%) la principal. CONCLUSIONES: Se observaron diferencias entre ANF y MANF en cuanto a variables demográficas y motivo de asistencia; no obstante en esta serie hubo un alto porcentaje de polintoxicaciones.